Nation already in election mode, why to take streets demanding Charter implementation?

We have not received any such proposal from the government stating that we have to do this and that within seven days. These are merely media reports. There has been no formal proposal to us.

We have made it clear that if the chief adviser wishes to hold discussions on any issue and invites us, we will attend. So why should the demand for the implementation of the Charter now move to the streets? The government and the National Consensus Commission must explain why they have deceived the nation.

The country has already adopted the election mode. Candidates are campaigning under their party symbols. The nation has moved beyond these debates. The election commission will announce the schedule at the appropriate time, and the government will organise the election. We are operating on that understanding.

As for the July National Charter, we remain committed—politically and ethically—to honouring and implementing it in its original form.

Among those who signed the recommendations submitted by the National Consensus Commission to the government regarding the process of implementing the July Charter is the chief adviser (professor Muhammad Yunus) himself, who is also the chair of the consensus commission. This creates a conflict of interest. The person responsible for implementing the Charter is the same person proposing the mechanism for its implementation.

We would not have raised this issue had the implementation proposal matched the Charter exactly as it was drafted, negotiated among the political parties and ceremonially signed. However, the proposal placed before the government lists 48 points in a schedule, and an executive order will be made for a referendum on those 48 proposals for constitutional amendment. Yet this proposal makes no reference to the positions, agreements, or notes of dissent submitted by the political parties.

Our point is straightforward: the July Charter was formulated through dialogue and consensus among the political parties. The chief adviser has consistently said—and stated publicly—that whatever consensus is reached among the political parties will be incorporated into the Charter and subsequently implemented by the next elected parliament. That was the agreed basis—and that remains our position.

When questions were raised regarding the legal basis and the method of implementation, we agreed that there could be further discussion. It was then decided that the Charter would be published through a government gazette. The notes of dissent would remain documented, and if any party gained the people’s mandate, they could implement their proposed points accordingly. And the points on which consensus already exists must be implemented in any case.

We ourselves proposed that public consent be obtained, because no political party by itself represents the entirety of the nation. Not all people do politics. The people express consent through voting—whether in a parliamentary election or a referendum. Therefore, it is reasonable to place the Charter before the people.

If the Charter receives public approval, it will acquire sovereign legitimacy and the newly elected parliament will be morally obliged to uphold it. In that context, conducting a national election and referendum on the same day is thus logical, cost-effective, and administratively efficient.

It is also evident that the overwhelming majority supports reform; therefore, the result would be the same whether the referendum is held before or after the election. Apart from this, there is neither the time nor the environment at present to hold the referendum beforehand. Hence, holding both votes on the same day is the most reasonable, acceptable, and practical course.

Now, if someone says that in exchange for holding the referendum on the same day, we must concede on the question of establishing the Upper House—that is not acceptable. That matter is closed and final. The Charter must be implemented exactly as it was negotiated, drafted, and signed.

However, the National Consensus Commission and the government have now altered it—omitting some provisions and adding others. That is why we have said this constitutes deception. The government is now advancing the proposals of certain political parties, and is asking us to resolve the issue among ourselves.

But we did not create this problem. It was the consensus commission and the government that initiated it, despite having no mandate to do so.

* Salahuddin Ahmed, member, BNP standing committee