A case for holding next polls under a caretaker government 

The revolutionary fervour that once electrified the nation and toppled Sheikh Hasina's despotic rule is fading fast. Disillusioned by the stumbling performance of the interim government, the people of Bangladesh now have shifted from utopian ideals to a single, urgent demand: a credible, democratic election. The euphoria has ebbed; now comes the reckoning.

In this tense and fluid political moment, the much-hyped Yunus-Tarek meeting in London flickered with promise. But a cautious, vague joint statement issued after the meeting has sowed confusion, rather than much sought-after clarity. The confusion thickened further as BNP floated the idea of a symbolic role for Professor Yunus, perhaps the presidency, if the party returns to power. As Yunus has neither embraced nor rejected the overture, instead of building unity, the meeting appears to have muddied the waters, casting fresh doubts on the interim government's timeline and impartiality.

Worse still, it now appears that the probable February election date was re-negotiated behind closed doors with the BNP as the sole interlocutor. If true, this damning indictment seriously erodes the interim government's claim to neutrality. In sidelining other actors -- especially those who led the July-August uprising -- the government reveals itself not as a steward of consensus but as a broker of selective backroom deals.

Two of the important political forces -- the Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizens Party (NCP) -- led by leaders of last year's uprising, and some others, have flatly rejected any rushed February poll. Their stance is unequivocal: no election without reform, no reconciliation without justice. Compounding the crisis is the unresolved status of the disgraced Awami League. If the ban on its activities persists and court proceedings continue to drag on, its participation in the next election is all but impossible.

THE CRUMBLING FACADE OF THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT: The interim government, supposedly a bridge to a better future, is instead beginning to resemble a cracked dam barely holding back the floodwaters of chaos. Despite enjoying a rare moment of unified national support -- from the streets to the barracks -- the interim government has squandered its political capital at an astonishing pace.

Law and order remain in tatters. Justice for the crimes of the Hasina era is frozen in bureaucratic limbo. Not a single meaningful reform has seen the light of day. Instead, the regime has stumbled from blunder to blunder -- recklessly attempting to outsource the Chittagong Port, entertaining a geopolitically naïve corridor to Myanmar, and squandering national focus on a hollow international investor summit that yielded little but embarrassment.

Worse still, while the country burned with crises, Yunus embarked on a globe-trotting spree -- ten countries in ten months -- raising serious questions about priorities and leadership. This is not a government steering a transition; it is a wreckage adrift in a sea of chaos. Legally compromised and politically impotent, it lacks the credibility, capacity, and public trust required to manage a high-stakes general election. Entrusting this rudderless ship with the democratic future of Bangladesh would be a recipe for disaster.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PATH IS CLEAR - RESTORE THE CARETAKER GOVERNMENT: There is, however, a constitutional off-ramp from this slow-motion train wreck. The High Court's landmark decision in last December to strike down the 15th Amendment -- a relic of the Hasina regime -- has opened the door to the return of the caretaker government system. This isn't nostalgia; this is necessity.

The caretaker model has a proven track record. It oversaw three peaceful, transparent, and broadly accepted national elections. In contrast, the current interim Government was cobbled together by a president who admittedly never even received a formal resignation from Sheikh Hasina -- an astonishing admission that shreds the last illusion of legal continuity of the interim government.

WHY THE CARETAKER MODEL IS THE ONLY VIABLE OPTION: First, the interim government is constitutionally illegitimate. Formed on the flimsy "doctrine of necessity," this government stands on shaky legal ground. Its birth was unconstitutional -- the president lacked any constitutional power to appoint it, the government's mandate is unclear, and its public trust is rapidly evaporating. Every day it lingers, it deepens the legal and political crisis.

Second, the caretaker system offers legal clarity. A revived caretaker government would be constitutionally mandated, time-bound, and purpose-built: to conduct elections within 90 days and exit. No mission creep. No political agenda. Just a clean transition with built-in legitimacy.

Third thing is that there is no need for immunity. The Interim Government will likely require retroactive immunity for its actions and decisions -- an ugly echo of martial law regimes past. A caretaker government, by contrast, needs no such legal gymnastics. It operates within the Constitution -- not above or beyond it.

Fourth is the credibility and trust. Confidence in the interim government has all but shattered. Even moderate allies are turning sceptical. A caretaker government, free from political baggage, can rally the nation and restore faith in the electoral process. It's not just preferable -- it's essential for transition to democratic governance.

Fifth, the Election Commission must be reformed. No election is credible if run by a questionable body. Before stepping aside, the interim government must reconstitute the Election Commission, mirroring past caretaker regimes that prioritized electoral integrity. Any attempt to hold elections under the supervision of a current Election Commission may doom the process from the outset.

Sixth, let the next parliament decide on constitutional reforms. Discussions about a bicameral legislature must not be hijacked by unelected officials or some party leaders, many of whom have no following. Whether Bangladesh adopts a proportional upper house, or representation based on seats won in general election, only a Parliament elected by the people should decide.

The next parliament may consider establishing an upper house as part of a broader constitutional overhaul -- one that embraces a true federal structure. Under such a framework, the existing administrative divisions could be transformed into provinces, each governed by an elected governor and represented by a fixed number of seats in a newly created upper chamber of parliament. Such far-reaching structural reforms must emerge through open parliamentary  deliberation -- not be hastily crafted by an unelected interim authority.

THE CASE IS CLOSED: Given evolving political developments in the country, a caretaker government is the only credible, constitutional, and nationally acceptable pathway to restore democracy in a post-Hasina Bangladesh. The interim government must recognise its limitations and relinquish its power once an election date is finalised. Bangladesh deserves better than a pseudo-legal caretaker in permanent crisis mode. It deserves a legitimate, impartial, time-bound administration empowered to deliver the only thing that can stabilise the country: a free, fair, and widely accepted general election. The stakes are too high. The window is narrow-- bring back the caretaker government -- before it's too late.

Dr. CAF Dowlah, a retired professor of Economics and Law in the United States, is currently Visiting Scholar at the Fordham University Law School, New York. cafdowlah@msn.com