With so many reform-masters from the Big Two appearing everyday with their own plans, some of the utterances, by way of suggestions about party reforms and politics and, indeed, about democracy and the next election, have managed to overstretch the capacity of ones cerebellum.

The BNP is now clearly split on the issue, if not down the center, at least there are two shades of opinions on the matter. While one group -- the "reformists without the current chairperson" (we have also the "reformists with the chairperson." She has thought it wise to display more discretion than valour on the issue, and, reportedly, has her own set of recommendations up her sleeves) has decided to get its reform agenda through at any cost, albeit under the provisions of the party constitution, the latter have chosen to leave their lot in the hands of the councilors. This is good news indeed for the councilors who, for the last fourteen years, had remained a forgotten and uncared for quantity. Those who have so long criticized the BNP for having made it a one-person show should note -- there will, after all, be a council meeting, at long last after fourteen long years. And it will be the councilors who will decide on the manner and the means of reform. Better a council meeting after fourteen years than never at all!

However, the AL's position on the issue is perhaps more confusing, if somewhat amusing, at least from what has so far been conveyed through the remarks made on the issue of intra-party reform by one of its senior leaders. The AL is also beset with the same problem -- "to have or not to have" the party chairperson onboard the reform bus. And some have turned out to be more "catholic than the pope" in suggesting their own reform measures. But what is most startling is the remark made by one of the very senior members of the party regarding democracy and the run of future politics in Bangladesh.

A democrat from head to toe, at least that was what we had known him to be, an uncompromising champion of a pluralistic political culture and people's rights, always at the forefront of movements against autocrats, both before and after 1971, it was disquieting to hear Tofael Ahmed suggest that there was little need to revert to democracy and elections for the time being, and that the present system should continue for the next three years. This after he had unhesitatingly admitted that behind all the woes that the nation is suffering are the politicians' follies, both as individuals and collectively as political entities. He would rather have the next three years used to cleanse the system of all the bad cholesterol, so that the choked polity could be reinvigorated with fresh blood.

While very few would find it hard not to agree with his second proposition, it is very difficult to see many takers of the first. He appears to be quite like an erstwhile Soviet communist, who found to his rather joyful surprise after the collapse of Soviet Union that communism was the shortest route to capitalism. One wonders what chemistry could have worked on an inveterate democrat to compel him to suggest the continuation of an unelected government. And if it is for the purpose of clearing the mess, one wonders whether even three years would be enough for cleansing the filth that has permeated through not only our politics but through every strata of our society.

Neither do people want to go back to the situation of the pre 1 /11 period, nor is it their wish to see the current arrangement perpetuated. An unelected government, such as we have now, can be effective only for so long, and in spite of the many faults of democracy it can never be supplanted by any other form of government. It is, therefore, for all to take note that the situation does not come to such a pass that self-perpetuation of the current system becomes a fait accompli.

Reform in politics or governance, or in the way a society functions as a political entity, is a good thing. That only reflects the dynamism of the society. Even the new British prime minister has suggested reforms in 12 major areas cutting the authority of the government, and in certain cases the chief executive, while investing more power in the House. Needless to say, any thoughts of change must be accompanied by honest motives. As for reforms in our politics and political parties we have been exposed to some very good ideas, but it would have served the parties better if the suggestions were collated and put out as the party position.

In this regard, one is also getting to hear all sorts of views on party leadership. It is rather puzzling to hear people talk about joint leadership in the party, when what they perhaps are suggesting is having a mechanism in place where the decisions would not be a one-person, or a coterie, show, but really be informed by the collective wisdom of the party members down to the lowest level. A situation of duality of command can be a cause of systemic dysfunction, more so in a political party. The reformists must, therefore, not go overboard when talking about reforming the mechanism of running the party. While you need a group of rowers to propel the boat there can be only one oarsman to guide it. And that is why having an intelligent and good oarsman is so very important.

To add to the bafflement are comments that we hear from the high-ups in the establishment. The one on the NSC we will deal with separately. But another comment, that of Commissioner Sahul Hossain, of making implementation of intra-party reforms conditional for any talks with the political parties on electoral issues, causes concern. It is, therefore, not surprising that some of the parties have taken umbrage at Sahul Hussain's remarks, and if some have found a similarity in the tenor of his remarks with those that were made by his immediate predecessors, they can hardly be faulted.

One wonders whether it is for the EC to lay down such conditions, or to even worry about who is in charge of the parties. It is not individuals, but the appointment holders, that it will invite for talks, and it is for the respective parties to decide who should represent them. Any party that meets the criteria set down by the EC merits invitation for discussion with the EC. Nothing that may create hurdles in the process of holding election should be done or uttered. Even more important is that nothing should be done that may convey a negative impression about the EC's intention of holding election as early as possible, but not later than end of 2008.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.