It is generally agreed that the greater the participation of the people in the process of decision making, by excluding political influence from differential wealth and social rank, the better the result. But if one were to look for political quality in the deliberative process then equal availability of opportunity may not necessarily produce the best judgment for the people because such decisions arrived at may lack epistemic value that democratic decisions are expected to have.

Long ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about his experiences about America, had expressed doubt about the efficacy of the quality of deliberations to attain best results for the nation. Equally, James Madison had warned about the need for control over the government in order to save itself and the people from the tyranny of the majority.

Edmund Burke also spoke about the cruelty that a government supported by the majority can inflict on the minority. But then, both Madison's and Burke's observations were made in the light of their own experiences of their time. It would, however, be difficult to counter the argument that the broadest possible input in deliberative democracy could result in lower level of knowledge-based input.

Doubtless, elections provide the people with the opportunity to choose their own representatives, enabling them to get justice, which a political scientist had stated, "requires that individuals have political equality, that is equal resources to influence decisions regarding collective properties of society."

But would elections necessarily solve the problems, say those faced by Bangladesh, just because the people get the opportunity to cast their votes? They did that in 2001, but are now being presented with daily reports of the misdeeds committed by the representatives they had elected?

In this age of globalization no country can remain an island, and aberrant regimes can be punished through hard power (as in the case of Iraq, notwithstanding false claims made against Saddam Hussein's regime about possession of weapons of mass destruction and having links with al-Qaeda) or through sanctions by the UN Security Council; mostly Third World regimes seek both national and international legitimacy. The quest for legitimacy leads the Third World countries to try to create institutions in their own societies.

It has been argued that institutionalization is possible in societies possessing a clear and dominant center of power, capable of facing-off competing disruptive elements. Disruption is all the more possible in the present day chaotic situation, where a charismatic person like Osama bin Laden can convert a reasonable number of people to an ideology which masks terrorism but preaches fighting against injustice, to an extent of unreason where the converts are willing to inflict death and destruction on the innocents and, in the process, blowing themselves up.

In the eyes of the jihadists their fight is legitimate, as is their leader. What is often forgotten is that legitimacy drawn from charisma is short lived, and needs to be constantly renewed. It would, therefore, be logical to remind ourselves that the execution of some leaders of the JMB may not be the end of Islamic extremism in Bangladesh, because the warped ideology of "jihad" also needs to be renewed periodically.

The immediate past government did not seek its legitimacy from the people, but through relations between the government and the elite, and on its ability to provide patronage to the politically significant elite.

The absent factor in the equation of governance was the people, in whose name the alliance government had ruled for the last five years. The policies were inevitably exclusionary, and had complete disregard for the welfare of the general masses.

Since recounting the incomprehensible saga of alleged corruption of the political leaders is unnecessary, because the details are being printed and broadcast every day, one wonders whether insistence on early elections would meet the expectations of the people if it brings in another batch of politicians of the same breed.

The advocacy is not for instituting a bureaucratic-authoritarian rule, with exclusionary politics in place of an inclusionary populist regime. The central point is to caution that our race should not be for elections alone but for democracy that would be sustainable, for which establishment of institutions should be given precedence over a time-line for elections.

In many Third World countries democracy has been an intermittent traveler, because the institutions necessary for sustainable democracy are fragile, due to inconsistency of age-old practices with modern institutions, and the failure of the elected governments to deliver socio-political goods to the electorate.

If democracy is to provide maximum possible benefits to the greatest number of people, then it can be argued that countries still lacking Francis Fukuyama's minimum conditions for sustainable democracy, i.e. reasonable living standard enjoyed by the people, culture inherent in the society that would promote democracy, neighbourhood effect, and unquenchable desire for democratic way of life, may opt for a government truly desired by the people, and that expression of support (could be through an internationally monitored referendum) would give that government legitimacy to rule for a specific period.

Such referendums should be through political consensus, and should not be like many rigged referendums that Third World countries have experienced in the past. International monitoring should not bring about the argument of abrogation of sovereignty, because many endeavours currently being carried out by the interim government are at the encouragement of the international community.

In any case, as the people and the international community have accepted the concept of the caretaker government, unique in character, the concept of an internationally monitored referendum for instituting a government for a specific period could also be considered.

This should not be seen as an adverse reflection on the level of intelligence of the people of Bangladesh, but it is only to ensure that the country does not slide back to the 2001-2006 period. In the ultimate analysis, any country, which wants to be recognized as a responsible member of the global community has to abide by globally accepted rules of conduct, or face the consequences of becoming an ostracized nation.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.