Ours is a unique experimentation in its third round, a textbook issue in developing country democracy. Interestingly, this time we are observing the experiment under a president who is also a professor of political science.

The previous two caretaker governments functioned reasonably well; they delivered their duties, presented elected governments and got dissolved. By and large, they were successful, and no one seriously complained about them. This time we had questions about the composition, integrity and neutrality of the caretaker government. A united opposition holding street demonstrations forced the reconstitution of the caretaker government. Apparently, all parties have accepted the new government. So far, it has earned praise. People seem to be happy. I hope they leave office still praised.

The idea of caretaker government stems from our mistrust of the party in power. We do not believe that a party in power can or will deliver a neutral election. Thus, by putting it in the constitution we have tried to institutionalize electoral neutrality. The three rounds of caretaker governments in our 17-year-old democracy taught us that a concept defined in the constitution does not easily get translated in practice.

It takes a while to learn and develop the "political culture." The process needs the support of many -- the ruling party, opposition, bureaucracy, military, judiciary, media, business, civil society and above all, the people. So far, the culture is just growing.

Let me make a few points that might help the development of a political culture of caretaker government.

First and foremost, we must keep faith in democracy, no matter how poorly it functions. It took us a long time and much sacrifice to come to this point. National agreements do not come easy. The Americans took almost 75 years to erect a National Monument in Washington, DC, recognizing George Washington as the father of the nation. Learning under democracy can be dangerously slow. The nation may have to see a few more rounds of caretaker governments to stabilize the culture. Let us have patience.

Second, developing the political culture of caretaker government is the collective responsibility of various power constituencies in the country. Especially, I will underscore the role of the military that has the power to call-off the experiment. This time our military has done an excellent job behind the scene. So far, they have shown "silent patriotism."

The military is the pride of a nation, and should remain that way. I would like to believe that the recent reports about our military, in The Economist (January 18) and the Financial Times (January 17), are exaggerated.

Third, we cannot develop a political culture without the politicians. Begum Zia, Sheikh Hasina, and Ershad are part of the political culture. We may disagree with them or may not like their positions. But we will need their cooperation for the continuation of democracy. They are our leaders, whether we love them or hate them. The political will of a nation emanates from the politicians. A nation cannot grow in a political vacuum.

Fourth, our politicians must understand that the acceptance of the opposition is an integral part of the democratic process. Unfortunately, they are taking time to understand this. Governments have not been able to develop a cordial parliamentary relationship with the opposition. So far the culture is -- one party goes to the parliament and the other takes to the street. This has to change. According to Transparency International, absenteeism in parliament has cost us Taka 4 crore.

Fifth, the caretaker government has a special role to play in establishing the political culture. The government needs to understand the scope of its work, and the limits of its power. The current anti-corruption drives by the caretaker government are laudable. Their efforts to establish an independent judiciary are also appreciated. Catching the local terrors should bring peace in our daily life. However, reforms under Emergency without political support may not be perceived favourably. They may not last long.

Apparently, the caretaker government's activities are getting a little ambitious. If I am not mistaken, US Ambassador Patricia Butenis also indicated this. The primary objective of the caretaker government is to deliver "a free and fair election," and it should stick to that goal.

Sixth, the collective role of bureaucracy, media, business, and civil society in establishing a political culture should also be noted. Each has a specific role to play. Their combined moral persuasion in keeping the government on track must continue.

Finally, the role of the international community comprising of the US ambassador, high commissioners from Australia, Britain, and India, ambassadors from the European Union and various other countries, United Nations, World Bank, and international donor agencies in diffusing the political tension should be noted.

The nation should be thankful to the international community who extended their hand in saving a new democracy, which is beyond the call of their duty. We have shown to the world one more time that we need international help, be it economic or political.

We should strive to develop our own political culture without foreign interference.

The round three experimentation of caretaker government should continue through consensus. Discussion and dialogue should continue among political parties, government, and other power constituents, to create a favourable atmosphere for election.

We must hold an election at the shortest possible time. An early public commitment by the caretaker government to a timetable for holding an election should be able to restart the stalled political process. The sooner we do it the better it will be for the development of a political culture.

Dr ANM Waheeduzzaman is a Professor of Marketing and International Business at Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, US.