On 15 June 1215, King John of England signed a document that was essentially a treaty between the monarch and rebellious barons. This agreement limited the king’s powers and affirmed the rights of his subjects, marking the beginning of constitutional rule in England. The document became known in history as the Magna Carta, a Latin term meaning "Great Charter." It is considered a foundational document of English political liberty.
On 4 July 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence was adopted. Through it, thirteen British colonies declared themselves free and established a new nation — the United States of America. The document explained the reasons why the colonies were seeking independence.
Roughly a decade after America’s turning point, a wave of change swept across Europe. In France, the monarchy was overthrown, and the First Republic was established. The core declaration of the French Revolution was the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, published on 26 August 1789. This document affirmed the inalienable, natural, and universal rights of all people — such as liberty, equality, and fraternity — aimed at securing the freedom and rights of the French people. The ideals of the French Revolution had a transformative influence on democratic and human rights movements around the world. In fact, the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence served as inspiration for the French revolutionaries.
The country gained independence with great hope. Except for a handful of families, everyone paid a price for freedom. But the fruits of independence ended up in the pockets — or were tied to the corners of the shawls — of just a few select families and groups. Today, we are still debating whether we want democracy, socialism, or a caliphate. A tiny group of oligarchs has mounted the shoulders of 170 million people like Sinbad’s giant, each flaunting their own doctrine. In their world, only they exist — the people do not. Here, the people are either cannon fodder or raw material for seizing power.
In a similar spirit, the Declaration of Independence of Bangladesh was written — modeled after the American Declaration — and was first read on 17 April 1971. It outlined the background and reasons for the country's independence, and declared the fundamental principles of the new state in the spirit of the French Revolution: equality, human dignity, and social justice.
These examples are given to highlight that the goals declared in those three countries were, in time, realised by their people. Today, they have governments that are accountable to their citizens and operate with a democratic mandate. We hear stories of progress and prosperity from those nations. We feel reassured when we send our children to live or study in those countries.But we have not been able to put our own house in order.
And here lies the question: Why not?
Some of us blame the East India Company, others curse the Pakistani rulers, and many bring up Mir Jafar in everyday discussions. But Mir Jafar died and became a ghost 250 years ago. The rule of the Company ended 78 years ago, and Pakistan's grip loosened 54 years ago.
So why do we continue to fail? Why are we still full of regret and frustration? How much longer will we hide behind the past, using it as a shield for our present failures? At some point, we must take responsibility for everything ourselves.
The country gained independence with great hope. Except for a handful of families, everyone paid a price for freedom. But the fruits of independence ended up in the pockets — or were tied to the corners of the shawls — of just a few select families and groups. Today, we are still debating whether we want democracy, socialism, or a caliphate. A tiny group of oligarchs has mounted the shoulders of 170 million people like Sinbad’s giant, each flaunting their own doctrine. In their world, only they exist — the people do not. Here, the people are either cannon fodder or raw material for seizing power.
Only once in history did the mainstream political parties of this country unite against the syndicates and autocratic rule — in 1990. That movement gave rise to a charter known as the ‘Outline of the Three Alliances.’ What did it contain? Here are some key points:
To free the country from the cycle of killings, coups, conspiracies, and plots, and to establish a full democratic system based on the spirit of independence and the Liberation War.
To form a sovereign national parliament through free and fair elections under an interim caretaker government. To ensure that all state-run media, including radio and television, become independent and autonomous institutions, maintaining complete neutrality. To uphold the sovereignty of the people and prevent any unconstitutional seizure of power. To guarantee the protection of fundamental rights, the independence and neutrality of the judiciary, and the rule of law. To repeal all laws that contradict fundamental rights. To refrain from personal slander and attacking opponents’ patriotism or religious beliefs, to reject communalism, and to collectively resist communal propaganda. (abridged and revised)
But these proposals were never implemented. The political parties lacked sincerity. The two leading party leaders did not sign the charter. The 1990 mass movement went in vain. We reverted to the old ways. Against a backdrop of political conflict, the One-Eleven (1/11) political changeover came in 2007, fueled by public frustration — but it collapsed within a year.
After that, we witnessed the rise of the most brutal autocrat in the country’s history — with comparisons found only in the medieval era.
This immovable burden was finally challenged by the July 2024 movement, a mass uprising. That’s when we saw a new digital generation emerge — Generation Z, aged between 13 and 30. Their weapons were mobile phones, social media, social awareness, love for their country, and the fearless courage to face death. We’ve read in the writings of Mao Zedong how a single spark can ignite a wildfire — and we witnessed that during the July 2024 movement, which etched the date “36 July” into the pages of history. But what happened after that?
What we need is a binding agreement, where political parties give written commitments to the people on specific issues. After seeing what happened to the outline of the three alliances, there's now a demand for a charter with formal pledges. This is the context behind the proposed July Charter.
The July Charter includes 84 reform proposals, of which 47 are related to the Constitution — these will be implemented by the elected parliament. Where parties disagree on certain proposals, their dissenting views have been noted alongside them.
This is where we keep stumbling. We’re not going to see a transition here like that of China in 1949 or Cuba in 1958. One model of change can never exactly replicate another. Apart from a few armchair dreamers with romanticised visions, most people here probably want a multi-party system.
But over the past five and a half decades, we’ve practiced a system that does not move toward sustainable citizen governance. Instead, it produces new "Nimrods" — tyrants. So, how do we break free from this? We can no longer place trust in anyone’s speeches or manifestos.
What we need is a binding agreement, where political parties give written commitments to the people on specific issues. After seeing what happened to the outline of the three alliances, there's now a demand for a charter with formal pledges. This is the context behind the proposed July Charter.
The July Charter includes 84 reform proposals, of which 47 are related to the Constitution — these will be implemented by the elected parliament. Where parties disagree on certain proposals, their dissenting views have been noted alongside them.
One of the charter's most important elements is its seven-point pledge, and in the third clause, it states that no political party will challenge the validity or legitimacy of the charter in court. The final clause of the pledge states that any decisions adopted by consensus in the July Charter that are immediately actionable will be implemented by the interim government as quickly as possible.
After holding multiple rounds of discussions with political parties, the National Consensus Commission, appointed by the interim government, sent the final draft of the July Charter to the parties on 14 October. Today, the parties are scheduled to sign the charter.
But at the last moment, disputes have arisen over how the charter will actually be implemented. There is little time left to resolve these differences. A few left-leaning parties have already declared they will not sign, and some parties have yet to make their positions clear.
As a result, both the interim government and the political parties are under pressure from multiple directions. Some parties have reasonable concerns about the July Charter, while others may be deliberately creating confusion. Let’s see what happens by the end of today.
#Mohiuddin Ahmad is writer and researcher
*The opinions expressed are the author’s own.