It appears that there has hardly been any impact on the Bush administration of the discussions between the special envoy of the chief adviser and high officials in Washington. The special envoy reportedly presented a report about the various actions initiated by the CTG since January 12.

A few months ago, the US had supported whatever initiatives the CTG had taken to create a congenial environment for holding a fair and credible election. The US ambassador in Dhaka publicly questioned the neutrality of the first CTG headed by the president. It appears that the Bush administration has changed its policy towards the CTG. The question is, why?

There appear to be many reasons, but some of them deserve mention:

First, the US is the dominant power in the world. It wants to set the agenda to which the rest of the world has to respond. It has established military bases in about 100 countries. As a superpower, it deals with multiple players within a country so that its basic interests remain intact. In the words of Lord Palmerston: "There are no eternal enemies or permanent friends." What is permanent is national interests, and the US, like any other big power, adheres to this doctrine.

Second, the Bush administration's support for Pakistani military president Musharraf seems to be waning because, once the Musharraf regime goes out, the US knows well that it may not have political support in Pakistan. That is why the US wants both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to return to Pakistan for contesting the coming election. It is assumed that the US has established links with both of them, and once President Musharraf goes it will have political support either from Benazir or Sharif.

Third, President Bush has made the promotion of freedom and democracy throughout the world the centre-piece of his program, but his administration has spectacularly failed in its mission of spreading democracy in the Middle East because of its flawed, unilateralist policy. Rather it has generated tension and war from Beirut to Kabul. This being the case, the Bush administration does not wish to fail in its mission in other countries, including Bangladesh.

Fourth, Bangladesh is one of the countries to which the US attaches importance for numerous reasons. One of the reasons appears to be that Bangladesh is overwhelmingly a Muslim majority country, and Bush does not want it to turn into a fortress of Islamic militants. That scenario is inconsistent with its war on global terrorism.

Fifth, the CTG is an unelected interim government and, in the long term, the US may not get political dividends by lending its support to it. Short-term interests cannot obscure its long-term interests. It seems that the Bush administration has realized that for long-term strategic reasons it is preferable to support political parties in Bangladesh, which have a popular base.

After the election is held, political parties will represent the people in the parliament. The US, then, would be able to deal with the elected government with some leverage, arguing that during the difficult period the US had stood for them.

Sixth, the US administration found a weakness in the initial decision of the CTG, even though it was temporary, to bar Awami League chief, Sheikh Hasina, from returning to her country. This afforded an opportunity for the Bush administration to criticise the decision.

Since then, the US has gradually become vocal in supporting the demand of political parties to hold the election as soon as possible (some say by November, some say not later than March), and the time-period of 18 months appears to be too long and seems unacceptable to them.

Circumstances leading to CTG on January 12
People inside and outside tend to forget that, since 1991, the history of elected governments in Bangladesh appears to be characterised by a persistent tendency of many government leaders to disregard the necessity and relevance of morality in their actions and conduct.

This is often done by resorting to favouritism, cronyism, nepotism and corruption. In such circumstances, friends, relatives, and party supporters generally not only got appointments to positions of high responsibility and high income, regardless of merit, but also government contracts worth millions of dollars.

Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how government functions. It is more than the sum of its institutions. A healthy democracy depends largely on the development of a democratic civic culture. Culture, in this sense, means the tolerance, behaviour practices, and norms that define the ability of leaders to govern for the welfare of the people.

People saw parliamentary democracy turning into a "tyranny of the majority, and a recalcitrant minority." The winning party got all the prizes. Untramelled powers of the prime minister have been characterised by gross abuses or inaction.

The hostility between the two major parties had driven the country almost to the brink of a civil war in early January. The president had to declare a state of emergency on January 11, and install the Fakhruddin government on January 12. The CTG restored law and order in the country with the assistance of the armed forces, and released the people from anarchy.

The CTG has been confronted with a huge task in creating a level playing field for all parties to contest a fair election. It reiterated that its sole purpose was to create a congenial environment so that the Election Commission could hold an election that was fair, impartial and peaceful.

The CTG has been taking action to curb corruption, muscle power and black money. The newly constituted Election Commission has been engaged in revising the rules of the People's Representation Order, 1972, for ensuring transparency and accountability of political parties and integrity of intending candidates.

The newly formed Anti-Corruption Commission has commenced lodging cases against those allegedly involved in corruption. Trials are expected to commence soon. The long-standing issue of separation of judiciary from the executive, as required by Article 22 of the Constitution, has finally been addressed. Previous elected governments neglected the issue.

Where does CTG go from here?
How long it should take to create a congenial environment for a fair election could be a matter of constructive debate. One side wants more time for the CTG to cleanse the mess left by the elected governments, while the other side, including political parties, allege that the CTG has not yet engaged in necessary reforms pertaining to holding elections as the Election Commission has not begun its task of making a voters' list. Furthermore, indoor politics has not yet been permitted, and political leaders claim that they cannot get on with the task of reforming their parties.

Many suggest that it is desirable that, while the CTG decides on the time-table for its task, it be sensitive to the demands of political parties and civil society. One fact that cannot be ignored is that people gets restive if a government stays for too long. This is partly psychological, and partly because a government often commits mistakes when it stays for a long time.

It appears that the majority of ordinary people on the streets supports the CTG in its actions, and does not mind if it takes some time to strengthen state institutions, including its actions in removing the tentacles of corruption.

Bangladesh has been passing through a critical moment in its history, and it has given the CTG a one-time opportunity for restoring the basic norms of democracy, and accountability in governing the country.

At this juncture, many political observers believe that the support of the people in the country, and of friendly countries, is necessary for helping the CTG in completing its tasks within the time frame it deems appropriate, taking into account ground realities.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.