The prevailing situation on the eve of the proclamation of emergency led to apprehension of a military intervention of some sort, or even imposition of martial law. However, the military acted wisely, and martial law was not necessary. The constitution, the state of emergency, and the CTG, provided the military sufficient scope of action, and the military, in turn, provided protection to the constitution and freedom to the CTG to work according to the constitution.

In the context of the politicians taking the country to the brink of an abyss, the people at large lent unprecedented support to the proclamation of emergency and to the CTG. Popular support was spontaneous and overwhelming, the fact of military involvement notwithstanding.

The popular support received a further boost from the CTG's declaration of its resolve to guarantee law and order, and its vow to create an appropriate atmosphere for holding free and fair elections as early as possible.

The CTG, indeed, took practical measures to live up to its commitment. However, its huge agenda of reforms and scale of work cast doubts on its ability to hold general elections and hand over power to an elected government within a reasonably short period of time.

The chief advisor's determined declaration, in his recent address to the nation, to hold the elections within 2008 removed all doubts and speculations. Although some observers criticized the time-frame as being too long, we seem to have a clear and acceptable schedule and road map to elections.

In the meantime, questions were raised about the constitutional validity, first, of the CTG beyond three months, and then of the state of emergency beyond four months from its proclamation. However, since elections could not be held within three months, for obvious reasons, and since there is no parliament, it was not difficult to defend the extended life of the CTG and the continuation of emergency.

That the CTG has attained legitimacy from popular support, and from the constitution, is very clear. Legitimacy is not merely the outcome of legality and constitutionality, but of overwhelming political support of the people. Erosion of legitimacy will creep in only if the CTG takes an unduly long time to accomplish the works it has undertaken. Can the time-frame announced by the chief advisor be kept?

The question of maintenance of the schedule arises because of the CTG's larger, and increasing, agenda of reforms, and the massive drive against corruption perpetrated by the high-ups, specially of the immediate past government.

The nation has been stunned and shocked by the scale and dimension of corruption. Many stalwarts of Awami League also have not being spared, and rightly so. The anti-corruption drive, per se, is necessary for healthy development of the nation, and also for rescuing the elections from the clutches of black-money.

The anti-corruption drive has no apparent end. While it is highly laudable, limiting the drive only to the politicians, and to a selected few, may breed distrust. Arrests and detentions can be easy, but the process of prosecution and conviction, or acquittal, can be lengthy. What is imperative is adherence to due process.

Will the time-frame allow the CTG to bring its anti-corruption drives to a logical and reasonable completion? Besides, any scope for thinking that the CTG is, seemingly, trying to keep a balance between the two major political parties in its arrest operations may, I am afraid, put a question mark on the credibility of the drive. Corruption ought to be weighed against its nature, scale and dimension.

The most talked about topic now is political reforms. The talk mostly revolves around the reforms of the political parties. After the CTG's insistence, the parties themselves are talking about reforms. Is this a paradigm shift in the policy of the CTG? Is it going too far by telling the political parties how to reform themselves for free and fair elections? The answer is both, yes and no.

Reforms are undoubtedly necessary. The CTG can definitely tell the parties to reform, or even promulgate ordinances stipulating the conditions for formation and conduct of the political parties for the smooth functioning of democracy. This may relate to registration of the parties, funds-raising, participation in the elections, etc.

But it ought not be concerned with who will lead the parties and how. This has to be decided by the parties themselves. The so called minus two formula is potentially fraught with risks and dangers for the nation.

Cleaning the parties of corrupt personalities is one thing; interfering with party personalities to disrupt party foundation and functioning is another. The two major political parties, Awami League and BNP, based on differing political ideologies, have grown over the years and ruled the country at different times.

Any third, fourth, or fifth force may emerge in the political scene. But deliberately promoting a third force at the cost of the two major parties may be counter-productive for the country under the present circumstances.

Strong political forces in the form of major political parties capable of running the country are an essential factor for the country's stability. Their weakening can lead to a political vacuum. A third force, in the short term, may prove incapable of filling the vacuum.

A political vacuum is a dangerous situation. It can be filled up only by the military, which, it is believed, is not desired by the military itself. That would not be a civilised way of running after democracy. Military rule has never, and nowhere, been proved good in the long run.

The CTG has, so far, done commendable work. The nation would not want to see them fail. They cannot afford to fail, because any failure would be catastrophic for the nation. The CTG, therefore, ought to take every step with utmost care.

It is true, and understandable, that the CTG would not like to see any force unfriendly toward its activities coming to power. On the other hand, it is also true that any party coming to power through fair and free elections would not be unfriendly toward the measures undertaken by the CTG, which enjoyed wide public support and ensured fair elections.

All quarters agree that it is possible to create an atmosphere, and take the necessary steps, to hold free and fair elections and hand over power within the declared time-frame. Any delay would cause erosion of the legitimacy that the incumbent government enjoys. The mounting agenda of reforms, and reforms of the political parties not kept within limits, may cause delay in the time frame, and the road map to elections.

Dr. M. Shah Alam is a Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Chittagong.