Bridging the gap
The two contending sides agree that the solution must be within the framework of the constitution.
Both sides agree that the election must be conducted with fairness and without bias.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. Both sides agree that they don't want to be responsible for plunging the country into a chaos.
Both sides agree that they don't want to endanger the continuity of the democratic process that was set in motion in 1990 by a people's movement in which both sides worked together.
With so much common ground, what does really stand in the way to the solution that has eluded four rounds of dialogue between the emissaries of the two major political parties, while the entire nation waits on tenterhooks? Is it a matter of saving face? Is it the ego of the two leaders? Whatever it is, is it worth the price that has to be paid in the setback to democracy and development? And the price in mass violence that is almost certain to erupt, if the dialogue fails? In any case, it then becomes a no-win game for both sides and for the nation.
If it is not a matter of "face" and "ego," is it then really the design of the ruling party to rig the election by having its own loyalists as the head of the caretaker government and the Election Commission, as the opposition claims? The onus is on the ruling party to address this question squarely, because of the circumstances created by itself.
The would-be CTG chief's past political role and the infamous extension of tenure of judges that made him eligible for the crucial position are not something to be settled by scoring debating points.
In the same vein, the Election Commission has lost the confidence and esteem of the public because of the behaviour and conduct of its chief and its members and the mind-boggling ineptitude of the commission. Even if the letters of the constitution are obeyed in both cases, the spirit clearly is being violated. Rule of law is upheld when justice is done and justice is also seen to be done.
The argument about creating a bad precedent for the future about the functioning of the CTG by ceding at this time to the demands of the opposition does not hold water because of the circumstances just noted. The real lesson for the future is that those running the government will have to be more careful about both the letters and the spirit of the constitutional provisions and have to show more regard for how their action would be perceived by the public than it has been the case so far.
There is no denying that the disaffected citizenry in general and the loyal supporters of the opposition coalition together at this point would easily constitute a majority of the people, whom the opposition can mobilize against a caretaker government that is not acceptable to the opposition.
Why the presumptive CTG chief, Justice KM Hasan would like to take on an impossible task, discredit himself for posterity, and in the process make the nation pay an incalculable price, defies logic and common sense.
Ironically, his silence and inaction, in the face of the rising crescendo of controversy about him and the staunch defence put up on his behalf by the ruling coalition only erode further his image of impartiality in the public eye and make his task even more difficult.
The political leaders on both sides of the aisle must see the reading on the wall and spare the nation a trauma. Justice KM Hasan stands in the unique position of being able to make it easier for the politicians and earn the nation's gratitude.