An election atmosphere has now taken hold across the country. The present interim government has only three months left in its term. Over the past year and a half, it has seen both successes and shortcomings. Yet, from the outset, one or two advisers have remained mired in controversy, repeatedly embarrassing the government. In particular, two student advisers have been at the centre of repeated disputes. With the election approaching, both are reportedly trying to join political parties and contest the polls – a move that would be not only reckless but deeply damaging.

If controversial advisers contest the election under the banner of any political party, it will not only taint that party but also raise questions about the government and the wider electoral process. It will give the impression that the party has colluded with the government to secure a win – or, conversely, that the government has acted to favour a particular party. Either way, it risks plunging the democratic process into crisis.

These advisers have been the subject of fierce debate for some time. Although the government asked both to resign, they refused. One adviser even announced publicly that he intends to stand in the national election. With fewer than ninety days to go, the government should now be operating strictly as an election-time administration, limited to routine duties. This is standard practice in democracies worldwide. Even in countries without a caretaker government system, administrative activity is scaled down in the run-up to an election.

If an adviser signals his intention to run for office at this stage, he forfeits the moral right to continue in his post. Any political party that takes him in will inevitably face scrutiny. Whether he joins BNP or Jamaat, the party will have to answer for his past controversies.

After the fall of the Awami League government during last July’s uprising, the interim government led by Prof Muhammad Yunus was formed on 8 August. The current Advisory Council, including the chief adviser, has 23 members. When it was formed, names were sourced from various political parties, and two student representatives were included.

Initially, parties did not raise major concerns about the council’s neutrality, and aside from a few portfolio adjustments, its structure has remained largely stable.

However, the two student advisers have courted controversy from day one. One was embroiled in a weapons-related incident. He later faced criticism for securing unusually high allocations for his own constituency and for obtaining a contractor’s licence using his father’s name. Whichever party takes him on will be taking on his baggage as well.

The other student adviser is known for making inflammatory remarks. His frequent posts on Facebook have repeatedly caused uproar and embarrassed the government. Added to this are allegations involving a television licence scandal and several other complaints.

Last month, during a meeting with the chief adviser, BNP demanded the removal of “party-leaning” advisers, reiterating concerns they had long held about the two student advisers. This time they objected to another adviser as well. In a separate meeting on the same day, Jamaat-e-Islami accused several advisers of working on behalf of BNP, though they did not name anyone. Meanwhile, NCP leaders told the chief adviser that, if necessary, advisers representing different groups – not just student advisers – should also be removed.

The government now needs to take a clear and timely decision on these controversial advisers. Political parties, including BNP and Jamaat, should also make it explicit that they will not offer them a political home. If they do, they will inherit responsibility for the advisers’ past misconduct. Such choices would ultimately undermine democracy and the health of the political environment.

Audite Karim is a writer and playwright. Email: [email protected]