The National Consensus Commission has submitted recommendations to the interim government for implementing the July Charter. A debate has already begun over these recommendations. Some political parties have welcomed them, while others have called them incoherent. What is your opinion on the Commission’s recommendations?
Ridwanul Hoque: There are inconsistencies as well as complications in the Consensus Commission’s recommendations. Many believe that a referendum is unnecessary, but I think a referendum on the July Charter is a good initiative and it is feasible. However, that referendum must be based on a specific question. If the referendum question is long or complicated, ordinary people will find it difficult to understand. As a result, the purpose of the referendum may not be achieved. Unfortunately, the Commission has not taken these matters into account.
Another complication or inconsistency has arisen over the “note of dissent.” In such processes, a note of dissent is very important. A note of dissent means that consensus has been reached on some issues but not on all. A political party that has disagreements or objections to certain proposals has given a note of dissent on those proposals. Because of this, when that party comes to power, they cannot be pressured or forced to implement the proposals on which they had registered dissent.
BNP’s position on the note of dissent should have been taken seriously. BNP is a major political party. They participated in all the processes of the Consensus Commission and signed the July Charter with notes of dissent on some proposals. But as the Commission has submitted recommendations excluding the notes of dissent, BNP may well feel deceived. This suggests that there were elements of non-transparency and a lack of trust throughout the process. It seems to me that the Commission has tried to impose certain decisions, which is not its mandate.
The Commission has recommended that the Constitution Reform Council complete constitutional reform within 270 days, and if it fails, the proposals will automatically come into effect after 270 days. Some people have questioned and criticised this time-bound approach to constitutional reform. What is your view?
Ridwanul Hoque: The recommendation that the newly elected parliament will also act as a Constitution Reform Council is also an inconsistent idea. An elected parliament can act as a constituent assembly if it is to frame a new constitution. But the political parties have not reached a consensus on drafting a new constitution. They have only suggested retaining the current constitution with a few additions and deletions. The proposed changes to 48 articles of the constitution can be made through constitutional amendments in parliament. There is no need for a separate constitutional reform council.
The 270-day obligation imposed for constitutional reform is unprecedented in any country. It is theoretically problematic and practically impossible. We cannot impose anything in constitutional deliberations. This must be done through parliamentary discussions. Who implements the constitution? The political parties. So why are their discussions being dismissed as insignificant?
There are also questions about the Commission’s recommendation that the government issue the “July National Charter Implementation (Constitutional Reform) Order, 2025.” In the absence of parliament, all ordinances are constitutionally issued by the President. So how can the government issue a separate order on the July Charter?
We must not forget that, by nature, the interim government is akin to a caretaker government. This government has accepted the current constitution as the basis of its legitimacy. As a result, the interim government was formed through the President’s approval or order. Following that, the President has issued many ordinances in the absence of parliament. If the July Charter needs to be given legal validity, it must be done through a presidential ordinance.
From the Commission’s recommendations, it appears they think that if the government issues an order in any manner and publishes it in the gazette, it will automatically become law. But that will not happen in reality. In the absence of parliament, this must be done through an ordinance. Whether the next parliament will retain the ordinance will depend on that parliament. These matters have not been properly considered in the recommendations.
What is your overall assessment of the Consensus Commission’s role?
Ridwanul Hoque: The task of the Consensus Commission was to help political parties reach a consensus. But instead of doing that, the Commission itself has made certain decisions. A few days ago, they said the government would decide when the referendum will be held; then they said the Chief Adviser will decide. We are again putting this in the hands of one person. If this is the approach, we are heading toward an autocratic model. The timing of the referendum, the referendum question — these were issues to be discussed with political parties. We must remember that reforms cannot be imposed by force, and such reforms will never be sustainable.
Given the situation that has emerged regarding the implementation of the July Charter, what do you think is the way out?
Ridwanul Hoque: First, we must abandon the idea of holding a referendum on a broad, complex question. We need to move toward a referendum with a very simple question, and then toward parliamentary elections. Political parties must be trusted. They must be given more space for discussion. It is now clear that there is no consensus among them on how to implement the July Charter. We must establish at least a minimal consensus to move toward democratic transition.
I believe Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus has an important role here. Along with being Chief Adviser, he is also the chair of the National Consensus Commission. Considering the real situation, he must take a more flexible approach and work to reach an understanding among political parties. This is not the time to take steps that deepen divisions among political parties.
Differences or distance among major political parties over the implementation of the July Charter are now evident. Do you see any risks for the election scheduled in February?
Ridwanul Hoque: I am an analyst of constitutional politics. Politicians or political observers can answer this better. I saw in the news that an NCP leader said elections would not be held without reforms. Another Jamaat leader said the election might not take place in February. Such statements are creating doubt and suspicion among the public. At a time when mutual trust among political parties is crucial to maintaining the stability of the state, creating such doubts does not send a good signal.
Thank you for your time.
Ridwanul Hoque: Thank you.