A referendum is also to be held alongside the national parliamentary election on 12 February. Many allege that the government has taken sides in this referendum. How would you explain the government’s position?
The government’s position is very clear. First, there is no legal bar to the government taking a position in a referendum. In fact, even those who are trying to raise questions about this acknowledge that there is no legal obstacle. Look at the Constitution, look at the RPO, look at the order related to the implementation of the July National Charter. Nowhere is there any legal restriction on whether employees of the republic can take a role, or whether the government can take a position. Internationally, look what happened in the case of Brexit. David Cameron was openly in favour of remaining in the EU. I can give countless such examples. Whenever a referendum is held in a country, governments do campaign in this manner.
The second issue in taking a position in a referendum is a moral one, and this is the moral basis I want to emphasise. What kind of government is this? This government is the outcome of a mass uprising. It said it would carry out reforms, that is its mandate. The reform process has begun through the formation of various reform commissions, followed by long, direct discussions with political parties. On some issues consensus was reached, and despite differences on others, the July National Charter was produced. So who owns this? The ownership lies with the political parties and those who participated through them.
The interim government is not saying that it wants to implement the reforms itself. It is saying, “We have all agreed; now we want to seek the people’s consent.” After that consent is obtained, those who come to power, and even those who do not, will have a responsibility. This cannot be merely the agenda of those in power. Therefore, the government’s responsibility is to ensure that the reforms for which it received its mandate gain the consent of the people, and that is exactly what the government is doing. We have tried to set an agenda so that, in the future, all political parties in Bangladesh remain committed to it and work to implement it. I do not see any scope for confusion here.
In the referendum, voters will respond to four questions on the ballot by changing a marker. Forty-eight proposals related to constitutional reform have been incorporated into these four questions. Each of the four questions will again have only one answer—“yes” or “no”. Some have raised questions about this format of the referendum. How justified is this criticism?
Raising such questions is unjustified. There are not four separate questions in the referendum; rather, there are four subject areas. All the issues have been presented to the public as four broad themes. The question is essentially one: whether you agree with these or not. When a referendum is held in a country to adopt a new constitution, or when major changes are required, often involving many articles of the constitution, sometimes more than 100 or even 200, does the country hold a referendum with 100 separate questions? No, it does not, because a constitution is a composite document.
Prothom Alo: Some have questioned how constitutionally and legally justified it is for the July Charter to stipulate a 180-working-day timeframe for parliament to complete reforms in line with the referendum decision. They argue that this would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. What is your view on this?
Ali Riaz: The first question is: what exactly is the Thirteenth National Parliament? The Thirteenth National Parliament is, at the same time, a constitutional reform body. It has been granted limited constituent power. This has been collectively agreed upon, and public consent is being sought through the referendum. If it were a constituent assembly, it would have unlimited constituent power. It could draft a new constitution or, if it wished, amend the existing one. In this case, since the focus is on extensive reform of the existing constitution, it has been given limited constituent power.
Why has this limited constituent power been granted? One of the main reasons is that some fundamental reforms are envisaged here. If you look at the issues placed before the referendum, or those contained in the July National Charter, they include a number of fundamental reforms. Now, if parliament is not given the authority to carry out these fundamental reforms, what would that mean? If the matter were later challenged in court, it could not be protected. If questions arise for any reason, it can then be said that parliament was granted this authority. Who granted this authority? The people did, because Article 7 of the Constitution states that “all powers in the Republic belong to the people.” This constitutional reform is a reflection of the people’s sovereign will.
Why is a 180-day deadline being set? The 180 days are intended to ensure that the reforms are completed within a fixed timeframe; this process cannot be stretched out over the next five years. We believe the reforms will be carried out within 180 days. Generally, what happens in the case of a constituent assembly? If it fails to produce a new constitution within a specified time, it dissolves itself. This has happened in Nepal in recent times. But we do not want to go down that path, because it would create political instability.
Suppose the referendum results in a “yes” victory, and at the same time the BNP wins the parliamentary election. The BNP had many notes of dissent. If the BNP now wants to carry out reforms, will they set aside those notes of dissent, or must they implement the reforms exactly as outlined in the July Charter?
We all need to keep in mind what the people want. Let the people decide how they want the reforms to be implemented; this is what we are asking the public, and that is why there is a referendum. Whatever decision comes from the referendum, implementing the reforms accordingly will be considered a moral responsibility for any political party. When a political party assumes such a moral responsibility, it is up to them to decide how they act, and they remain accountable to the people in this regard.
Prothom Alo :
You served as co-vice chair of the National Consensus Commission. In that capacity, you held extensive discussions and meetings with political parties regarding reforms. What is your observation regarding the political parties’ commitment to reforms?
Ali Riaz
My observation is that political parties do want to implement reforms. There are, however, differences in scale, how much they want to do, how they want to do it, so there are some differences of opinion. But through dialogue, these differences have been largely reduced. Many discussions took place around the July National Charter. In that process, many parties moved away from their strict party positions. They have openly said, “Our party’s stance is different, but in the interest of reaching consensus, we have come this far.” So, in my view, they are committed to reforms; they want change.
What about the comfort of political parties? In a sense, maintaining the status quo creates a favorable environment for them, because we get used to working in a certain way. But most political parties have moved away from that position. I do not think anyone wants to return to the 2007-08 period. I do not think any political party harbors such an aspiration. One point to remember is that the actions and behaviour of the Sheikh Hasina-led government have been shaped, at least in part, by the experience of 2007-08.
There will be a party in power and others in opposition; but if we view it only as a contest for power, it will not be positive for Bangladesh’s future. The 2026 election in Bangladesh is a foundational election. It is an election that will set the course for the country’s future
You said that political parties want to carry out reforms and that they have a certain commitment. They even signed the July National Charter. The Charter states that after signing, in the next general election, each political party would nominate at least 5 percent women candidates for the existing 300 parliamentary seats. But in practice, more than 30 political parties did not nominate a single woman candidate for any seat. Does this mean they are going against the path of reform?
The issue of nominating at least 5 per cent women candidates was a gentleman’s agreement. Some parties said, “Whether you enforce it or not, we will nominate women for at least 5 per cent of the seats.” Other political parties said that they could not do it immediately, so it should not be imposed. During discussions at the National Consensus Commission, I repeatedly said over several days that the commission would not impose anything.
The parties that had agreed to this gentleman’s agreement failed to uphold it in their nominations as well, which I find deeply disappointing. Direct participation of women in the mass uprising was an important aspect. The way some political parties acted in ensuring their representation later effectively ignored women’s participation in the uprising. At the same time, this is not a very positive signal for Bangladesh’s future. It is also important to note that during the consensus commission discussions, women’s movement activists and leaders of women’s organisations were not able to put effective pressure on political parties. Had they succeeded, the situation might have been different.
If the voter turnout in the referendum is comparatively lower than in the national election, will that raise questions about the moral obligation of the referendum?
In the most recent referendum held in Bangladesh, just over 35 percent of voters cast their ballots. Did that raise any questions? Would you then say that because slightly more than one-third voted in the Twelfth Amendment referendum, it was not morally right to proceed with our parliamentary system?
Voter turnout can vary between a referendum and a national parliamentary election. That is a matter of voter preference. Parliamentary elections involve choosing individuals and party symbols. On the other hand, a referendum is a question of principle. Choosing an individual is easy; expressing an opinion on a principled issue is not. So voter turnout in a referendum may be lower than in a parliamentary election, and that does not give grounds to question the referendum.
The July Charter and the referendum are primarily concerned with legal and constitutional changes. Can merely legal and constitutional reforms prevent the establishment of autocratic or fascist rule, or do we also need a change in our political culture?
These are two interrelated issues. I emphasise institutions, because if institutions are strong, they create the possibility for change in political culture; but institutions alone cannot do everything. Likewise, if institutions are weak or absent, political culture will not change either. These two are closely connected. I believe the starting point should be institution-based, because political culture changes through practice; it does not happen overnight.
Many have told us that nothing was done to establish democracy within political parties. That cannot be done from the outside. This was attempted in 2007-08, but imposing it from outside caused serious damage to democracy. That is why institutions such as the Election Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission need to be strengthened. If the practice starts from there, it will promote a form of democratization within political parties, bring about changes in political culture, and create a space for tolerant cooperation among them.
You have written and spoken extensively about a new political settlement. In the context of the mass uprising, has there been any progress in creating this new political settlement?
We have not had the time or circumstances necessary to create a new political settlement after the July mass uprising. But the aspiration has been generated, and the idea that a new political settlement must be created has been established. That, in itself, is progress. To create a new political settlement, one of its key elements is changing the political economy—creating the political economy of the new settlement. This could not be achieved in such a short period; whether it could have been done, I am not certain. But the aspiration that has been generated will not easily disappear.
I am not deeply disappointed that a new political settlement could not be created this time. I also do not think that the inability to create it now means it will never happen. People have developed the aspiration, the idea has been planted, and a certain awareness has emerged among political parties. I firmly believe that efforts toward structural change in Bangladesh will continue in the future.
BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir recently said that the upcoming election will determine whether the country is in the hands of liberals or extremists. You have long worked on religious extremism and terrorism. Is Bangladesh really at a point where extremists could come to state power?
That is the statement of Mr. Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir or his party. I have no intention of downplaying it. But who he means by extremists and who he considers liberals, he alone can clarify that. Without that clarification, when someone frames it in such binary terms, it creates polarisation. That actually poses a challenge to the progress of the democratic process. These areas of polarisation must be avoided.
I see this election differently. There will be a party in power and others in opposition; but if we view it only as a contest for power, it will not be positive for Bangladesh’s future. The 2026 election in Bangladesh is a foundational election. It is an election that will set the course for the country’s future. Where will the country go? Will it be inclusive? What will be the role of the state? Through the election, we will collectively decide these matters. I want to view this election in that way.
Prothom Alo :
Thank you for your time.
Ali Riaz
Thank you as well.