A new constitution, guaranteeing fundamental rights and rule of law was soon adopted. But the new dawn we all dreamed of did not come. Bangabandhu who had mobilised the people for the struggle for freedom so well failed to mobilise a functioning government and resorted to the desperate measure of a one-party state. The 15-year period of assassinations, successive military dictatorships and darkness that followed has been well documented. The constitution was trampled at will.

Then came the uprising of 1990 forcing the sitting military ruler to give up power and ushered in 15 years of democratically elected governments. We dreamed again. But corruption became rampant and it appeared to have been taken to a new height by the most recent elected government. Their eagerness to manipulate the election and the opposition's equally determined stand against such a thievery led the country to a near civil conflict, resulting in the declaration of a state of emergency under the constitution and set up of a military-backed caretaker government (CTG) with a mandate to hold a free, fair and credible election. A significant component of the Bangladeshi civil society welcomed the new CTG, if not outright backed it.

The CTG' s steps to revamp a partisan election commission, eliminate corruption, improve law and order and reduce the influence of black money on future elections were welcomed by the people. However, certain worrisome trends have emerged recently. Both civilian and military elements backing the CTG have begun to jockey for their favourite agenda. Some in the army appear to favour a new type of democracy, raising the spectre of another experiment with the country's political destiny. (Some of us who were around then still remember the “basic democracy” of Pakistani dictator Field Marshal Ayub Khan). A segment of the Bangladeshi civil society which has been frustrated in the past 15 years by the foot-dragging and often outright hostility by elected governments to their agendas sees an opportunity to end the dynastic political leadership of the two major parties. Thus, they encouraged the entry into active politics by Professor Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Of course, for such a scenario to succeed the two major political leaders, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, who have alternated as prime minister during the past 15 years, have to be removed from the scene. They carry the legacy of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and General Ziaur Rahman, respectively, and remain popular. Hence, the mechanism of exiling them emerged. But it soon backfired. Where do we go from here and successfully?

In order to answer this question, we need to critically examine what went wrong and what worked in Bangladesh during the last 15 years. Clearly, the past three elections were free, fair and credible, despite the claims of fraud by the losing party. The CTG mechanism had worked. Both the Election Commission and the CTG had the usual determinants needed for success of any political system, namely people who made it work.

Unfortunately for Bangladesh, the succeeding elected governments did not spend time to build or strengthen the country's institutions. For example, separation of the judiciary from the executive did not happen despite each new government promising it. The Election Commission did not or could not enforce the spending limit of candidates for parliamentary election. Rather politicians took advantage of weak institutions to consolidate their hold and enrich themselves. In fact, the parties did not practice democracy in their own organisations. The immediate past elected government took the corruption of institutions to a higher level. Determined not to lose the next election, they stacked the election commission with partisan persons, and manipulated the government machinery and possibly some in of the courts. From behind the scenes, they dictated the CTG that took over late last year and was later replaced by the current one. These clearly expose weaknesses of the country's institutions.

Despite these shortcomings, Bangladesh made huge strides in the past 15 years. The economic growth was robust at over 5% in the past few years. The press was free and active in reporting political and financial corruption. Civil society organisations were engaged, though frustrated. After some hawing and hemming, the government did apprehend and try the militants who had caused much havoc. Foreign investment, though somewhat slow, was coming in. The microcredit phenomenon had made Bangladesh known the world over, and ultimately earned Prof Yunus and Grameen Bank a Nobel Prize. The birth rate was down and female education was boosted. The Bangladesh military earned the country much respect for their role in UN peace-keeping missions.

But the single-most important success for Bangladesh in the past 15 years was the holding of three successive and successful fair, free and credible elections for the first time since her birth. It looked like the military leadership, much to their credit, adopted a policy of non-interference in the politics of the country. Yes, the losing party did not accept the results, made a lot of noise, the parliament often did not function as it should have and there were hartals galore. Some say we did not have real democracy, just only elections.

But elections are the very first and absolutely critical steps of a democracy. The fact that in each of the last three elections the immediate past ruling party, having been unable to keep its election promises, had lost speaks volume of the political maturity of the electorate of Bangladesh. Thus, the answer to past failures is not withholding of elections, abrogation of current institutions, exiling political leaders, declaring martial law or inventing a new type of democracy. The answer is functioning of robust political, electoral, administrative, judicial, educational and civil society institutions, a free press, and guarantee and execution of fundamental rights of life, limb, speech and property, and upholding of the constitution. An independent judiciary is a must.

The answer to the past failures is fostering of a national dialogue to arrive at a consensus on strengthening these institutions. The time is of essence as the country waits. The people will be eternally grateful to the current CTG and its backers if they can steer the country in the direction of dialogue, institution-building, holding free, fair, and credible elections, and hand over power to an elected government at an early date.

I hope the political parties learn from their current near-death experience. Any new system must hold the parties accountable for following their own constitution and the law. Party leaders must grow their spine to challenge illegal and corruption-ridden practices. It was shameful, and frankly pathetic, to watch major parties utilising foreign ambassadors and senators to mediate their dispute. Political parties must institute internal democracy and declare their adherence to the founding principles of the country. One of those was religion-neutral equal treatment of its citizenry before the law and the constitution. There is no doubt that the people of Bangladesh take their religions seriously, but they want to exercise their fundamental rights irrespective of religion. That dream of martyrs of our war of independence can no longer be denied.

One more thing. The two major parties must stop their lame bickering on naming a father of the nation or identifying who declared independence. In the process we have ignored the role of Tajuddin Ahmed, Maulana Bhashani and others in Bangladesh's long struggle for emancipation. We all recognize Bangabandhu as the premier leader of the 1971 war of independence. In the same token, General Zia is one of the premier heroes who made the war of independence successful along with others.

As for Bangladesh's political personalities, being Bangbandhu's daughter or Martyr Zia's wife, respectively, does not give Sheikh Hasina or Begum Khaleda Zia any special entitlement. If anything, it imposes a special responsibility on them which they have failed to fulfil. They have squandered a unique opportunity to use their lineage and take the country to great heights. As for General Ershad, it is time that he finally pays for his sins instead of being sought for support by the two major parties in the shameful spectacle we have witnessed in the past decade.

As for alternatives to the two major parties, a strong third major party would definitely be welcome. But it must offer an institutional and organisational alternative and not be a vehicle for propelling a certain individual, no matter how brilliant and well-meaning he or she is. Yes, personalities do matter, but they must function within an institution for a long-term benefit to accrue.

Let us not be fooled by the current calm due to the state of emergency. Bangladesh faces a grave test of viability as an independent and respected country. Her leaders, current and future, must act with wisdom, honesty and decency so that the country does not join the column of failed states. The current crisis offers another extraordinary opportunity. Let us dare to dream, once more.

Dr. Ahmed Badruzzaman is a Bangladesh-born scientist. living in California.