There is a unique element to Bangladesh's political system, which some other multi-party democracies might do well to imitate. Under a 1996 constitutional amendment, when a general election is called, in the three months between the announcement and the declaration of the result, the country is run by a non-political government which oversees the election and is supposed to ensure fair play. The system which was actually first used in 1991 has much to recommend it. While the caretaker government has no mandate to take any policy initiatives of its own, its assumption of power generally means that the outgoing government is not in a position to take advantage of its incumbency to stack the electoral odds against its opponents by, for instance, seeking a greater share of broadcast air time or using the governmental machine to assist its campaigning. It would also appear that a further advantage of the arrangement is that it leaves the politicians free to go out and try to win votes. Unfortunately, in the bitter political divide that is Bangladesh, the reality is that political campaigning becomes so polarized and extreme that some might think it better that the retiring government were obliged to devote part of its attention to the business of continuing to run the country. Now, Bangladesh has once more been plunged into turmoil with violent demonstrations by supporters of the opposition Bangladesh National Party which is led by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. They are protesting the abolition of the country's unique political handover system by the Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina. The bitter rivalry between these two women, which unfortunately has distorted Bangladeshi politics for far too long, explains why their hugely partisan supporters have taken to the streets to denounce or back the change. At least two people have died, scores have been injured and property and vehicles have been destroyed as rival groups have clashed both with each other and the capital Dhaka's long-suffering police force. Opposition anger, which is also felt by other smaller parties, stems in part because Sheikh Hasina chose to abolish the system without any consultation. The move which was initiated last year came after a legal ruling, which many claim to be questionable not least because the effect has been to make a major constitutional change. The clear suspicion is that without independent oversight of the next general election, which is not actually due to be held until 2014, there is a danger the government will seek to rig the vote. The consequence of that is, that regardless of how clean the vote really is, if she wins another term of office, Sheikh Hasina's new government will never enjoy total legitimacy. It is one of the saving grace's of the country's visceral politics that, by and large, the losers have tended to accept defeat without great protest. Now, however, Sheikh Hasina has robbed Bangladesh of an important political pillar, which has brought its unruly politics a key element of stability. There can be no doubt that were she in opposition at the moment and her deadly rival Khaleda Zia were making this move, the Awami League would be protesting the changes with equal vigor. By throwing away this effective political mechanism of a non-political caretaker government, Sheikh Hasina has set her country on a risky course, which her own Awami League will have cause to regret, as and when it loses power.
