The reforms that we emphasise today -- and you see a whole phalanx of experts, most of them ubiquitous on the media, harping on the idea without end -- would have convinced us of their urgency had these, in earlier times, been brought up by the parties themselves. What is now taking place, therefore, is a change that is not only forced, but also one being forged, despite those who have long ignored the thought.

Which is just as well. But there remains that pretty unsettling feeling that political change brought about on the basis of compulsion may sooner or later be nullified, indeed may not amount to much in the long run.

There is always that danger in politics. And history has all too often been witness to realities that in the end have lost meaning and substance altogether. Which is why, when you dwell on the brisk pace which a group of individuals have lately set for themselves regarding the formation of a new political party or platform, you are quite tempted to judge their activities against the backdrop of history.

You travel all the way back to Ayub Khan, before journeying back to the times of Ziaur Rahman and Hussein Muhammad Ershad. Those stories have been poor and hollow. As for legacies, there have been none. When, therefore, today you observe politicians at the mid and lower levels of the major parties coming together in search of a new philosophy to offer the country, you feel cynicism rising, froth-like, somewhere deep within your consciousness.

It is the antecedents of the men behind the move that worries us all. At a time when we as a people peer into the deep dark for signs of the arrival of a leader who can unify the country, in the way that Bangabandhu once did so splendidly, it does not make us happy that what we are being offered is a prospect we could do without.

And that takes us back to the reforms question. Yes, by all means, we will have reforms in the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. If that is the goal, why not extend the scope of the reforms to include all other parties, including the minnows in the field? That said, the reforms of the political parties everyone seems to be talking about these days must have something more than an objective of saying goodbye to Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, and having their places taken over by others.

To be sure, if these two paramount figures in national politics are sent off into retirement by their parties, in that strictly political manner, no one will have any complaint. But to suggest that reforms in the parties should essentially amount to sending the two former prime ministers out of the political scene, other things remaining constant, would amount to losing sight of the forest because of an inordinate interest in the trees.

Let there be reforms, but only through processes that the parties, in the broader national interest and in light of the ground realities, inaugurate on their own. Any sign of reforms being imposed on a party will run the risk of coming to naught once open democratic patterns return to being the norm.

Beyond Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, then, comes the bigger issue of how reforms will not only transform the parties but also chart anew the political course the nation means to set for itself.

The latest thoughts of the Election Commission should be a pointer to the priorities we need to focus on. It has spoken of necessary changes in the parliamentary nomination process itself. The practice of individuals coming by nominations through arbitrary decisions made by party parliamentary boards, and more specifically by an exercise of fiat on the part of an omnipotent party leader, needs to be bulldozed down to a more acceptable standard of political behaviour.

When, therefore, the EC says it would like local or grassroots party units to shortlist probable nominees for general elections, almost everyone will tend to agree. That is the way it ought to have been. And that is the way it should be in the years ahead.

So there you have a fairly good idea of where and how to initiate reforms. Any move that seeks to emasculate a political party is not reform. Everything that promotes openness or transparency in a party actually adds substance and value to the idea of government by the consent of the governed.

Which takes us to the question of how the broader political system in Bangladesh can be overhauled. There is little question that the systematic experimentations that have gone on around the modalities of governance since the liberation of the country have exacted a huge price.

Instability has been a socio-political constant, despite an all-powerful presidential system giving way in 1991 to a putative parliamentary or cabinet form of government. But that change in 1991 was a lie, for what passed for parliamentary government was in fact prime ministerial government riding roughshod over universally accepted norms of political behaviour.

A reform of the political parties must, therefore, aim at the evolution of a tradition that will have the powers of the head of government whittled down to the necessary minimum, and at the same time have parliament hold the cabinet to account over policy making and its implementation.

When prime ministers do not respond to public interest questions on the floor of the House, it is a sign of the anemia that national politics is afflicted with. When the speaker of the Jatiyo Sangsad proves unwilling or unable to be bipartisan in his leadership of the legislature, it tells upon the ability of a class of our politicians to do justice to the jobs they hold.

Reforms, then, might as well touch upon the matter of the ability and integrity of those who would hold high political office. How you judge such individuals without slipping to the judgemental depends on how committed you are to the growth and flow of parliamentary politics in the country.

And, speaking of parliamentary politics, quite a few more changes of a substantive sort can be mulled over. The first-past-the-post system at general elections has clearly run its course; and the times when a winner could take all are patently a tale of a past, with an odour of the sordid about it.

So what you are now left with is the more acceptable, and therefore more credible, idea of proportional representation being a basis for a functional parliament. It is a system that has worked well in Germany, and in other places.

In Bangladesh, it could be one of the ways in which our lawmakers can be prevailed upon to stay focused on their responsibilities. Beyond that, proportional representation could be the first step towards putting a check to an arbitrary exercise of power by a single party or alliance in Parliament. That, we will agree, is something to be devoutly hoped for.

Reforms succeed when they go beyond individuals, and into the job of improving the quality of existing political institutions. Proof of that comes through the tasks the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Election Commission and the Public Service Commission have set for themselves. Need we say more?

Syed Badrul Ahsan is Editor, Current Affairs, The Daily Star.