I resided in Baghdad from 2001 until mid-2003. This was the time when the Iraqi government arranged presidential elections. Saddam Hussein was the only candidate. His sycophants campaigned that the approval rating of their leader had increased and that he should score 100 percent votes in the presidential run up. On the day of the elections, I asked my cook, Ibrahim, whether he had voted. An ethnic Kurd, he replied in the affirmative, saying, “Who else can I vote for?” By the evening, the vote count was over — the incumbent president had received 100 percent votes in his favour. There was hardly any reaction in the Arab world as all the member countries were under a totalitarian system. The governments of Western Europe and North America dismissed the outcome of the elections as a charade. The following year, Saddam Hussein was removed from power and a large number of people (including those coerced to vote for him) rejoiced, standing on the fallen statue of the former president. The above paragraphs aim to bring home the point that elections are a well-accepted mechanism in democracy for peaceful transfer of power. This underscores a few commitments: the rulers and the ruled have to believe in democracy. If they have faith in democracy they should opt for a peaceful transfer of power. If they are committed to a peaceful transfer of power, there is no alternative to elections. Elections are a mechanism that translates the verdict of the people, free from pressure and coercion. Therefore, a congenial ambiance is a prerequisite for arranging a poll that has significant implications for the future governance of the country. In many countries, a candidate has to score a minimum of 51 percent votes to win. If, in the first round of the elections, none attains that benchmark vote, another round of elections between the top two candidates is held in order to ensure that the successful candidate has the confidence of the majority of the electorate. This is the true spirit of elections — to let the candidate undergo a screening process to prove beyond doubt that he/she represents the people. Should that process be allowed to falter or be subjected to coercion, peaceful transfer of power gets obstructed and totalitarianism takes over. In a number of countries, a trend has been set in motion to avail elections to obtain power. Once in power, the ruling party distorts the electoral process in order to perpetuate its rule. It happened in Algeria in the 1980s and, more recently, in Egypt. Mohamed Morsi secured 51.7 percent votes and came to power as a nominee of the Muslim Brotherhood. In order to consolidate power, President Morsi brought in a number of amendments to the constitution and put himself above judicial scrutiny. Attempts were made to bring the media under control; television channels critical of the government were shut down and dissidents were rounded up. His actions enraged former allies who gathered in Tahrir Square and demanded his resignation. The military, waiting in the power corridors, seized on the division in the democratic camp and dislodged President Morsi and his party. Mohamed Morsi and his colleagues are now awaiting trial while the country is mired in violence. Events taking place in Bangladesh since mid-October are indeed disconcerting. Seven days of strikes in three weeks have brought untold suffering to the people. Over 100 lives have been lost, thousands wounded and put behind bars, and property worth billions has been destroyed. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s telephone call to the leader of the opposition, Khaleda Zia, raised hopes of reconciliation but brought disenchantment as soon as the details of the conversation were made public. People began to doubt the motive of the telephone call. The 37-minute call was devoted mostly to altercation and an invitation for dialogue did not figure prominently. Though government functionaries claim the door for dialogue remains open, the acrimonious language used by the prime minister against the leader of the opposition in public rallies undermines the scope of a dialogue. To make the situation worse, five senior leaders of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) were arrested on November 8, 2013. After a period of remand they were sent to prison. Other senior leaders of the BNP have gone into hiding and the BNP chief, Khaleda Zia, has almost been put under house arrest. There were reports that the water connection to her residence was being disrupted and supplies of essentials denied. This behaviour is repugnant to a democratic culture. The ministers submitted resignations to the prime minister on Monday. It is claimed from the government’s side that this is a prelude to the formation of an ‘all-party government’. The entire episode has given rise to a new controversy. No one knows when and how the all-party government is going to be formed. Ministers are still working and will, reportedly, continue to work until the new cabinet is formed. Experts have argued that ministers cease being ministers once they submit resignation letters and that their actions as ministers are illegal from the date of their resignation. The information minister defended his stance by saying that since the resignation letters did not have dates, they would be effective only after the president had accepted them. The law minister has defined the entire exercise as unconstitutional. Now there is a situation: the ministers have resigned but they continue to function as ministers, advisors have not resigned and continue to function, and the prime minister is on the verge of forming an all-party government though there is no indication of the inclusion of opposition parties’ nominees in the new cabinet. How should the present set up be characterised? Can it be called neither an ass nor a horse? The current state of affairs is hurting Bangladesh’s economy. The business community has repeatedly stated that strikes and violence are slowing down their activities and driving away opportunities of foreign investment. The image of Bangladesh as an emerging democratic and economic partner is being tarnished. The governments of friendly countries have voiced concerns over the prevailing situation. They have urged the political leadership to arrive at an agreed trajectory that would permit free and fair elections, and facilitate a peaceful transfer of power but is the political leadership listening? If the present chaotic situation is allowed to continue, the people might begin to lose confidence in the political parties and politicians. This requires people to suspend their disbelief because there is a great contradiction in the behaviour of the politicians. Amongst them are also power mongers able to shift their loyalty for the sake of money and opportunities. It takes huge faith to hope that politicians will demonstrate brinkmanship and salvage the country from the precipice. The author is a former official of the UN