The Consensus Commission has submitted its recommendations on how the July Charter should be implemented. The most significant aspect of this Charter is constitutional reform — because the political parties could not reach agreement on all the proposed amendments.
After lengthy discussions, the Commission prepared a set of reform proposals, but most of these still carry differing views from the participating parties. The parties signed the July Charter along with their stated notes of dissent.
It is known that all political parties agreed on holding a referendum. But there was ambiguity over how the Charter would be implemented and what specific question the public would vote on — the “yes” or “no” question itself. The Consensus Commission’s proposal has clarified this. But at the same time it has raised a valid concern — has the Commission’s recommendation created a new source of political crisis?
The Commission has proposed a specific referendum question, “Do you approve the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, 2025, and the constitutional amendment proposals contained in its Schedule-1?”
According to the recommendation, the words “draft bill” may be omitted if necessary. Moreover, it was recommended that the notes of dissent attached by political parties regarding constitutional reforms in the July Charter should not be considered in the referendum. In other words, if the public votes “yes” in favour of the Charter, there will be no further scope to revisit those dissenting views.
This referendum question is problematic. It is unrealistic to expect that the entire population will fully understand and assess the 48 proposed constitutional amendments before voting. Even for those who do, a voter might agree with some reforms and disagree with others. Thus, these 48 proposals cannot simply be reduced to a binary “yes” or “no.”
This referendum question is problematic. It is unrealistic to expect that the entire population will fully understand and assess the 48 proposed constitutional amendments before voting. Even for those who do, a voter might agree with some reforms and disagree with others. Thus, these 48 proposals cannot simply be reduced to a binary “yes” or “no.” Voters will be forced to either accept all 48 proposals or reject them all. Did the Commission take this into account when framing the question? Perhaps it simply wanted to legitimise its reform package.
But rather than approving the Charter itself through a referendum, the more logical approach would have been to authorise the next parliament — through the referendum — to amend the Constitution in line with the July Charter. The question for the referendum should have been constituted considering this.
On 8 October, I wrote an article titled “Referendum unnecessary, but even if it happens…” in Prothom Alo. Based on Bangladesh’s past three referendums, my argument was that there was no real need for another one on the July Charter. Since the political parties had already reached agreement on holding a referendum, I added a few words beginning with “if it happens…” suggesting: “The referendum should be held only on those proposals of the July Charter agreed upon by all political parties, and on the basis of a single, clear question.”
I also wrote, “There is no need for a referendum on the issues where political parties have submitted notes of dissent. Those dissenting views should be treated as part of each party’s election manifesto. The people will choose their preferred party with these positions in mind. The elected party, with the people’s mandate, will then amend the Constitution accordingly. A party’s election victory means public support for its stated position.”
The July Charter contains 48 proposals for constitutional reform. Of these, as many as 36 have elicited differing opinions from one political party or another. When these disagreements were incorporated into the Charter, it was ensured that if any political party mentioned its dissenting views in its election manifesto and later came to power through popular mandate, it would then be able to amend the Constitution in accordance with its own stance.
However, it now appears that in the draft of the July Charter Implementation Order, only the reform proposals themselves have been included. According to the order, the Constitutional Reform Council, comprising members of parliament, must amend the Constitution “in accordance with the July National Charter described in Schedule 1”.
According to professor Ali Riaz, vice-chairman of the Consensus Commission, even though some parties have submitted notes of dissent, once the Charter is approved through a referendum, it will be implemented as it stands. This implies that if the referendum produces a “Yes” verdict, the constitutional amendments will be enacted precisely as drafted by the Consensus Commission.
In line with the Commission’s recommendations, the referendum will not be limited to those issues on which all political parties are in agreement. Nor will there be any scope to take into account the “notes of dissent”. The first question that arises from such a recommendation is this: why were the dissenting opinions incorporated into the July Charter if they are to have no bearing on the outcome?
If a political party has strong objections to certain proposed constitutional amendments, and those objections were duly recorded, could that party—upon winning a national election—be compelled to implement the Charter in its entirety?
The party could reasonably argue that it had made its position clear before the election. Now if the electorate chooses them, why will it not possess the democratic right to pursue constitutional reforms in line with its declared stance?
Take, for instance, the proposed constitutional amendments concerning the creation of an upper house of parliament through proportional representation and the prohibition of the prime minister from holding multiple offices.
The BNP has expressed strong objections to both proposals. One may consider the BNP’s position narrow and partisan, yet it remains the party’s official stance, and its dissent is recorded in the July Charter.
Now, if the Charter is passed in a referendum and the BNP wins the national election in February, the Commission’s framework would require the party to implement both amendments. But can such an obligation truly be enforced?
Conversely, if the BNP is confident of winning the next national election and does not intend to implement the July Charter, what would its stance be in the referendum? Would the party then campaign against it? The politics surrounding the referendum have already begun to generate discord and division, and public confusion is growing.
In an earlier column, I argued that the referendum is unnecessary. I also wrote: “If a referendum must be held, it should take place after the national election. The newly elected government could then amend the Constitution in parliament—based on the consensual elements of the July Charter as well as its own notes of dissent—and only after parliamentary approval send the amended version to the President for ratification through a referendum.”
The July National Charter, drafted by the Consensus Commission after much time, consultation, and effort with political parties and other sections of society, now seems to be faltering on the issue of the referendum. The proposed referendum, as it currently stands, is unlikely to yield anything productive. Rather, it appears to be an attempt at a muddled, compromise solution.
The more the political discord over the referendum intensifies, the less public interest it will attract. Turnout in such referendums tends to be low in any case; any call for boycott by a political camp could make the situation even more dismal. A controversial referendum held before the national election could prove perilous for the country’s politics.
* AKM Zakaria, deputy editor, Prothom Alo. He could be reached at [email protected]
* (The opinions expressed are the author’s own.)