Under the circumstances, one cannot take exception to the fact that the need of all-pervasive reform has been brought home by the military backed establishment. One also would be less than correct in assuming that genuine sustainable reforms cannot be realised by a non-representative government.

The military has been credited with saving the country from an ominous civil war. It is thus only proper to understand and appreciate that the same military have also realised that a minuscule minority of our elite has garnered most of the productive assets of this country, and have also hijacked the political system which is democratic only in name.

One would only be frank and forthright in admitting that the military is an organized segment of the government and the broader society. Therefore, they cannot be faulted when they point out that most of our institutions do not reflect ground realities and are hollow and have lost relevance. Not many would blame them for inferring that the decay of the state is the cumulative result of a number of factors and successive governments have all contributed their bit to the institutional breakdown we face today.

There is no denying that we need reforms in all aspects of our national life. We need economic reforms. We need electoral reforms. We need reforms in local governance. We need reforms in police administration, health, education, water supply, agriculture, industry, law, and banking. Indeed it would be simpler to make a negative list where we do not need reforms.

The quarters that smell rot in the military's desire for reform and look condescendingly upon such efforts are perhaps deliberately oblivious of the reality that our present predicament is the result of our ruling elite's inability to keep pace with the changing times. The main thrusts of such elites have been towards maintaining the status quo. In such a process they have been successful but in the bargain all our institutions have been weakened. By their very nature, such elitist groupings are anti-reform.

It would be relevant to remember that the British colonial administration despite being anti-people did have a modernizing effect on our part of the world and did provide a framework for reasonably good governance. What we could do in the yesteryears was to democratise our political institutions, decentralise government working, devolve authority at local levels and discard the harsh laws that were enacted to keep people in control. Unfortunately, our politicians that included military dictators believed neither in democracy nor in the rule of law. They not only kept on postponing major reforms which could empower the people to take control of their own lives, they also debauched the whole system. The neutrality, independence, and non-partisanship of public services were compromised and a new culture of political patronage and influence pedaling started. With the politicisation of bureaucracy, all hopes for improvement were dashed.

If the military as a disciplined outfit is pressing for order and obedience to propriety in public dealings from behind the scene, then there is nothing wrong in that. After all, our politicians until recently gave a damn or merely a lip service to any thoughts of their accountability to the polity.

Experience indicates that the greatest source of corruption in public life is the immunity of political parties from accountability while small baker, butcher and grocer are expected to keep accounts. It is but fair and equitable that political parties should be disciplined by the same requirements of the law which apply to citizens at large. Such a change would only need an addition of a section to the representation of the people order. The relevant question is, have our politicians ventured into such a process before others took the initiative? Since the answer is in the negative, can politicians stand on a high moral ground and intellectuals find faults with the military for evincing interest in direly required reforms?

The process of our institutional reform has commenced due to donors' pressure. So what is the problem if the caretaker government is insisting on some reforms? There should not be any if we are ready for structural changes. We have survived on myths and misconceptions for a long time. Our leaders have fabricated alibis for their inaction.

We have to admit that there is a lamentable lack of effective governance, a large state apparatus notwithstanding. There are stark disparities in income distribution, and the equanimity with which people accept all the inequalities, indignities, and insults are striking. The fact of the inactions of our leaders as well as their skill in producing scapegoats to shift the blame for their own failures is amazing.

For any reform effort to be credible, the first step would be regaining the confidence of the people. When the government loses credibility the natural consequence is that its writ doesn't run. State institutions become weak and are soon replaced by mafias. This is what has happened in Bangladesh. Therefore, if the efforts for regaining people's confidence are facilitated by the military's involvement in the affairs of the state, one has to bear with it.

An important thrust for reform will be to reduce the role of the government and to professionalise the public services as opposed to their politicisation. It is time we had a lean and slim government. This essential but extremely unpleasant task can be accomplished during this period of reforms.

Our principal problem in respect of effecting reform is that for doing the job we have to depend on the same inefficient, status quo-oriented, inward looking, conservative and indecisive machinery that itself is responsible for the current deterioration.

The instruments of governance are in the stranglehold of well-entrenched vested interests who believe that any change would harm them immensely. So the question is, will the skies fall if we experience a big jerk from the present dispensation, especially when the same has not come from the desired quarter?

The objectives of the present military backed government may perhaps not proceed hand in hand with the democratic aspirations of the polity. Some may also cite the unsavoury experiences of the indiscretions of our past military dictators who didn't further the cause of democracy in the not-too-distant past. But can that be a valid justification for not taking serious cognisance of the apparently well-intentioned proposals of an enlightened military?

Forces of social control are on the wane in our society. Most guardians have unfortunately become deviants. In such circumstances, efforts to stall the delinquency and restore propriety demand the support of the mainstream.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist of The Daily Star.