The ongoing debate on political reforms appears to have moved to a periling journey leading to infighting within various political parties, excepting Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh and the left-leaning parties. The concept of political reforms went through various phases. During the first phase, two issues were hotly debated — first, corruption at different levels of political parties; and second, dynasty-based political process. The second phase witnessed arguments and counterarguments in the form of rebuttal. Third phase showed some mild resolve of the political parties in the form of argument that until the ban on indoor politics was lifted, it would not be possible for the parties to initiate the consultation process on the issue of reforms and reach meaningful consensus within the party hierarchy on the one hand and the Election Commission on the other.
   
   Merger of issues and consequent confusion
   With a kind of hindsight, it is possible to say that the whole debate started with electoral reforms after the Election Commission was reconstituted. The commission at that time affirmed that the issues relating to electoral reforms would not be given the final shape without consultation with the political parties which were rightly described by the commission as major stakeholders in the process of reforms. The roadblock to the approach taken by the commission was the ban on indoor politics. The commission appeared proactive on the issue which is reflected in the fact that it requested the government on more occasions than one to lift the ban on indoor politics but to no avail. Thereafter, it was interesting to see the frustrated chief election commissioner making public statement that they would not make any further request to the government on the issue.
   
   The government view
   Although some top government spokesmen initially clung to the view that until the political parties initiated steps to put in place in-party democracy, it would not lift the ban the ban on indoor politics. Startling facts relating to complete absence of democratic culture inside political parties were revealed by the media. Thereafter, the government spokesman articulated the completely opposite view that it was not the business of the government to force political parties to make necessary changes in the constitution of the respective parties.
   This came in the wake of rebuttals from the political parties and other interested quarters that reforms within the political parties were a matter internal to the parties and outside interference was wholly unwarranted. From a purely academic point of principle, this was probably right. However, the realities were different. This is evident from a good number of media reports, not to speak of the candid views that are now being articulated by the top leaders of major political parties.
   
   From confrontation to conciliation
   The most recent phase of the debate on political reforms provides strong evidence of transition from the state of confrontation to conciliation in the sense that the political parties appear to have realised that reforms are imperative as the next step forward; it is definitely a positive sign. The government spokesman has welcomed it as indeed others interested in the issue. The spokesman from the government has even gone to the extent of saying that in the event political parties apply, it would not hesitate to consider opening up indoor politics in a restricted from. Restricted because the government might allow holding of council meetings to consider and make necessary changes in the constitutions of the reform-minded political parties. It is possible to say that similar approach could be taken at the time when the Election Commission made requests to the government on the issue. Much time could be saved if such a decision were taken then. However, it is better late than never.
   
   The impending fallout
   The impending fall out within the reform-minded political parties is all too evident. Statements and counterstatements, not so much directed at the government, but within the party hierarchies have started pouring in. And that is in-party democratic culture, which appears to have remained locked almost permanently. However, this positive sign has its own risks if it degenerates into fragmentation of parties, which will definitely, weaken the parties themselves. The surest way to avoid such an impending disaster is to reach consensus without malice, bickering or blind personal loyalties. That is the roadmap for better political governance within the parties. If they can imbibe this culture in letter and spirit, the much debated issue of constitutional governance will be better served without any need to call in the armed forces in aid of civil power and hopefully corruption cleansing.
   
Some ominous signs
   Reports have it that the newly-born Liberal Democratic Party born out of the participation of some leaders from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bikalpadhara Bangladesh now stands divided. The two streams have reportedly agreed to form separate entities because of lack of consensus over party management and leadership. It is too early to say what political influence these breakaway factions of the BNP will have in future.
   Worse still, there are visible signs of further break up in the camps of both the BNP and the Awami League and the Jatiya Party. It is perhaps more visible in the Jatiya Party which has taken the form of a family feud. In the BNP, the divided camps appear to be led respectively by Khaleda Zia, still the chairperson of the BNP, and Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, the secretary general of the party. As regards the Awami League, the scenario appears similar with minor differences in leadership. At the same time, it is also a fact that both these parties are planning to consider the draft in their respective councils and finally take a decision on the reform measures for which drafts are ready.
   In this respect, the BNP is ahead of its traditional rival, the Awami League, in the sense that the BNP faction led by Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan has recently made public the proposed reform measures. The Awami League reportedly is also ready with a draft but it may take more time to reveal the reform measures. The primary thrust of the reforms measures in both the parties appear to end the tradition of continuance of same person in party office and consequent domination of decision relating to party affairs, discipline and nomination of candidates for parliamentary election. If adopted, this sounds good and should be welcome. The other salutary reforms element relates to bifurcation of party from government. This is also fully in consonance with democratic norms being followed in mature democracies. In the past few decades, party offices and politically-elected executive posts were merged with its deleterious consequences on governance. One can perhaps add that this is a necessary step but not a sufficient condition for constitutional governance. It may not be sufficient because unless the age-old mindset of politicising administration and judiciary and intolerance for dissenting views within and outside the party still persist, the result will be anything but constitutional governance.
   At the end, one can say that while reforms on the lines already indicated by the parties are necessary and welcome, the real test will lie in improving governance. At this point of time, it is perhaps appropriate to use the cockney expression ‘you ain’t see nothing yet’.