But it would surely have made a lot of sense if Mansur had opted not to accept his new job. He says he means to serve the country in his new capacity. All good men and women in this country are motivated, like him, by a desire to be of service to the nation. But what has been happening, especially where the Election Commission is concerned, is that those who have been appointed to its exalted offices are regarded as being individuals who have chosen to serve the political coalition in office rather than the entire country.

Mahmood Hasan Mansur would have done us all proud if he had observed the objective realities in the country before taking up the offer to be part of the Election Commission. He would have been the recipient of our collective gratitude if he had declined to join the EC. The sad reality is that he has not, which is a pity. At a time when conscientious men and women all over Bangladesh want the entire set-up at the Election Commission to be replaced by people with greater acceptability, and hence credibility, it is hard to accept the fact that good men like Mansur are keen to show themselves as being part of the system. The system, by the way, lies prostrate, for it has been hugely damaged in the past year or so.

As you move around the towns and villages of this country, you will hear a good deal of commonsense talk about the need for some resignations in important political, as well as administrative, spots. That, of course, is a message which has not been heard, indeed is not being heard, in the corridors of power. Altaf Hossain Chowdhury should have resigned from the government a long time ago. That he continues to be a minister without portfolio quite undermines the nascent democracy we appear to be struggling through.

And now we hear that he is into business of a sort that even the Securities and Exchange Commission has questions about. Minister of State for Home, Lutfozzaman Babar, for all the enthusiasm he keeps demonstrating before curious media people wanting to know about law and order has not made us happy with his performance. He could have taken the very dignified path of giving up his post. He has not, like so many others in the four-party alliance government.

Law Minister Moudud Ahmed, the very epitome of politeness despite all those public worries about the shifting sands of his politics, could nevertheless have left his mark on history through carrying out the important job of separating the judiciary from the executive branch of government. He chose not to do any such thing. But consider this: if he had decided to quit office by taking responsibility for this procrastination over the judiciary issue, he could have occupied a high moral ground and we would have identified with his cause.

You can go on and on with tales of how some resignations could have left us all feeling better about ourselves as a nation. You could argue the merits of resignation till the sun sank into the sea at the end of the day. The tragedy for all of us, though, is that there are simply no men or women courageous enough to walk away from jobs for ethical reasons.

When Commerce Minister Hafizuddin Ahmed acknowledges his inability to rein in those who raise prices in the market, because of that faceless syndicate, we expect him to take the next step as well, which is to inform the country that he has had it up to his neck, therefore, he is leaving. Finance Minister Saifur Rahman, despite his relentless pontification about the need to weed out corruption, eventually presided over a program for transformation of black money into white. That was disappointing. The minister himself should have felt disappointed as well and taken the honourable way out. Ask yourself a simple question: What would Tajuddin Ahmed have done in such circumstances? Ah, but Tajuddin Ahmed would never be part of a government that would leave the state at the mercy of robber barons, would he?

That makes you think. The country we inhabit today is simply not the country we saw emerge into freedom on a December afternoon in 1971. Mistakes have been made aplenty, and nearly everywhere. There would hardly be any point in apportioning blame to particular individuals or governments, though the degree of responsibility for all the blunders committed might vary from one era to another. But where the present government occupies a distinctive position, in a demonstration of arrogance, is in its absolute unwillingness to respond to public sentiment. When Prime Minister Khaleda Zia tells the country, with all that show of hauteur, that it matters little whether or not the opposition takes part in the forthcoming elections she is making it hard for people to believe that democracy will actually dig deeper roots in Bangladesh. The ruling coalition can surely have an opposition-free election and can certainly romp home with a "massive mandate." And then what?

Anyone who recalls February 1996 cannot but recoil, with a sense of horror, at the way conditions have lately been shaping up in Bangladesh. Besides, there are all the lessons of history the ruling circles can learn. General Ershad went for a flawed election in 1988 and then was out in two years' time. Pakistan's Zulfikar Ali Bhutto won a huge majority over his opponents in March 1977. The opposition then marched on the streets in protest and put his government in truly hot soup.

The arrogance that comes with an exercise of power can only cause terrible upheavals in society. When ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party leaders predict another two-thirds majority for themselves at the next election they are deliberately, or naively, papering over the realities which stare them in the face. Self-confidence is a rarity in societies such as ours. But when such self-confidence, because it is misplaced, points clearly to self-destruction, and indeed to attempts to drive a hole through our national self-esteem, we are left with little choice other than to wait at the bend of the river for salvation.

And there are men around who can yet salvage our self-esteem. Think of Justice K.M. Hasan. Forget the fact that he has been linked to the BNP. Forget, too, the idea that he has served as ambassador in a BNP administration. And, if you can, try not to remember his embarrassment over the Bangabandhu murder trial case.

All that is important now is that there is the very real possibility of his taking charge as chief of the next caretaker administration. The controversy swirling around him simply muddies the waters, and all the time. But matters do not have to be that way. Justice Hasan can make sure that the country can make its way out of the woods through the simple, bold act of withdrawal from contention.

There come in history all those moments when individuals are required to demonstrate, in clear, unequivocal manner, the courage to abdicate from responsibility or expected responsibility -- all in the larger interest of the society they are part of. Justice Hasan can afford to take that courageous plunge and so make it possible for all of us to move on to the business of ensuring a free, fair and therefore credible election.

The issue is not one of Justice Hasan's playing a partisan role in the run-up to the elections. He is considered by his friends to be a man of integrity; and the mere fact of his once being aligned with the BNP is little cause for us to think he will ensure that his friends in the party will triumph at the polling stations. Every man is entitled to his political opinion.

And, like every other man, K.M. Hasan will obviously, or should, leave his politics at the door as he assumes charge of the caretaker government. We will not pre-judge his intentions, not at all. But, for him, a far better proposition will be to let everyone know that he will not accept, owing to the debate over his past, the position of chief advisor in October.

Back in March 1968, President Lyndon Johnson stunned, and then charmed, America through his announcement that he would not seek, and would not accept, the nomination of the Democratic Party for a second term in the White House. In times and places nearer ours, the instance of Sonia Gandhi ought to suffice. She abjured the office of prime minister of India. Respect for her act of magnanimity soared.

What if Justice K.M. Hasan did decide to walk away from his rendezvous with history? And what if, to our amazement, other miracles begin to occur, purporting to inform us that Chief Election Commissioner M.A. Aziz and his colleagues had chosen to follow in the footsteps of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court?

Syed Badrul Ahsan is Executive Editor, Dhaka Courier.