Other embarrassing episodes that captured British news headlines included Hasina's series of reckless and irresponsible statements to influence policies back home, once the ban on her homecoming was reversed.

While in London, Hasina pleaded with Commonwealth Secretary General, Don McKinnon, to pressure the CTG and the EC for an abbreviated, shorter than 18-month, election time-frame. What is truly self -- deprecating is that she urged McKinnon to send observers to watch the EC's activities to ensure enhanced transparency (DS May 5).

Hasina's follies on foreign soil continued in a London rally where she questioned the legitimacy of the CTG -- only to be immediately contradicted by constitutional expert Dr. Kamal Hossain who told another London gathering that the incumbent CTG was 100 per cent constitutional.

By asking McKinnon to influence the internal political dynamics of her country, Hasina just proved that national pride and sovereignty can take a back seat to her lust for power.

Asking foreign observers to check the transparency of the EC's activities simply disparaged her country's constitutionally appointed, highly competent EC officials.

Maybe the ACC will hire some AL and BNP politicians to work for the Commission as OSDs to ensure transparency of the ACC's activities, and quell Hasina's suspicions.

With reference to Khaleda and Hasina, Kamal Hossain, in his May 7 interview with ATN Bangla, said: "Both of them are responsible, and should be accountable to the people for the misrule and corruption perpetuated during their respective governments."

About Khaleda Zia, he added: "She will have to answer for all the irregularities and atrocities committed during her regime." Similarly, he added: "Sheikh Hasina should behave and react in a positive manner, as irregularities committed during her rule are being questioned."

Although I am not an attorney, I can easily defend Hasina's and Khaleda's "not guilty" plea for the crimes of miss-governance, and penchant for overlooking corruption during their respective tenures as premier.

Khaleda's kleptocracy can be defended perhaps due to lack of proper education, resulting in her incapacity to grasp how public policy, governance and the country's laws interrelate.

Similar arguments would also constitute Hasina's defence, except that her psychosis wasn't as advanced as her counterpart's with regard to political cronyism. While Khaleda lacked the mental capacity to decipher and comprehend the advice of experts, Hasina hardly cared who advised what.

The country has seen what these two self-styled leaders were capable of delivering during their tenures in office. Who could have thought that their pledges for eliminating corruption, if nothing else, would one day become their image tainting liabilities? How many corrupt politicians, public servants and businessmen were prosecuted for corruption during their governance? No wonder that the ACC Chairman, Hasan Mashud Chowdhury, in aggrieved voice, expressed his concern that two years from now the drive to punish the corrupt may not exist.

If the past of our elected representatives is any indication of the future, the people who are accustomed to the culture of political omnipotence may not feel at ease, having to deal with the power of the independent judiciary, the ACC, the police, and other reformed institutions.

Would the elected politicians try to make these institutions dysfunctional or irrelevant then? Pragmatically speaking, no political government will ever stage a crusade against corruption with the same vehemence as the current reformers.

While it is imperative that we keep the pressure on the CTG and the EC to hold a free and fair election sooner than later, at the same time, a realisation of the conditions that would make the holding of the election possible is also equally crucial. Unlike Sheikh Hasina, Don McKinnon recognised that there were reform issues that needed to be addressed for organising the elections and ensuring sustainable democracy in Bangladesh (DS May 5).

But the over-anxious politicians would rather let the reform initiatives get derailed, and seem willing to accept any quick-fix election now. Why so? They're afraid that honest and competent people will emerge with a new party if election is delayed by 18 months. They're afraid that more of their people will be netted for corruption by then.

Certainly, lifting the ban on indoor politics would be considered a prudent move, allowing intra-party reforms to begin, but the state of emergency must continue through the 2008 election.

The reform initiatives can't be halted. Politicians must appreciate that the country never saw so many competent and honest people in different branches and departments working tirelessly in unison to reverse the disastrous fallout of past misrule! Don't forget that the Augean stable created by Khaleda's administration once raised the specter of a failed state.

Many of us may be long gone in 20 years, before the damage to the higher judiciary is undone. People want changes now -- not 20 years down the road. Therefore, there shouldn't be any quibbling about the ground-breaking intra-party reforms. Even BNP's well known senior leaders are slowly coming out of their closets and demanding reforms. But Khaleda seems as ambivalent as ever.

The doctrine of "ending dynastic politics with minus two" has certainly misfired with regard to Khaleda. In a direct affront to this doctrine, Khaleda elevated her brother Syed Iskander (alleged to have amassed millions) to the position of BNP's vice-president to consolidate the party's command, whilst reinforcing the party doctrine "BNP means Zia family." It seems that many of Khaleda's accomplices are striving to espouse that doctrine and save their Madam.

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.