Political analysts believe that in his address to the nation on Thursday, Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus offered a balanced solution regarding the legal basis of the July Charter, representation in the upper house, the referendum, and the national parliamentary election. Some may question this. But it seems they have not offered any better proposal than this.
The problem is that our political parties are so distrustful of each other that they prioritise their own interests and are unwilling to consider others’ views or demands. Several parties have already accused the interim government of bias. Before discussing this in detail, it is useful to note each party’s position on the July Charter.
The main demand of Jamaat-e-Islami and its allies was that the upper house elections be held on a proportional basis. Even those strongly opposed to Jamaat’s politics supported proportional representation. However, Jamaat wanted it based on votes received, while BNP preferred it based on seats won.
BNP, on the other hand, initially opposed the referendum but later accepted it on the condition that the referendum and parliamentary election be held on the same day. The National Citizen Party (NCP) demanded that a constitutional order be issued by the government to provide the legal basis for the July Charter, and that the National Parliament act as a constitutional reform council for a specific period to pass the reforms.
Law enforcement arrested Awami League activists and supporters for arson on vehicles or crude bomb explosions, which is commendable. However, why was no one arrested for setting fire to Awami League offices? The government’s selective security measures create anxiety rather than reassurance among the public.
Analysts believe that the Chief Adviser considered the demands of all three sides and proposed a compromise formula. The fundamental change is proportional representation in the upper house. Once implemented, this system will apply to all future elections. However, after establishing the legal basis of the July Charter, the referendum will lose significance. Third, as per the NCP’s demand, once the provisions of the July Charter are converted into law, the constitutional reform council will cease to exist; the 13th National Parliament will function like any other parliament.
In this case, the proportional representation system in the upper house is the key fundamental change. Those advocating for this system in the field will be able to implement it in the lower house as well if they win the next election.
Still, the question remains whether Jamaat’s criticism of the Chief Adviser’s speech and accusations of favouring one party over another have some hidden motive. BNP and its allies could make the same accusation. Although they initially opposed the referendum, they accepted it in the interest of compromise.
Now, if Jamaat and its allies refuse to accept the referendum on the day of the parliamentary election, the situation could be disrupted. The government would have to start the process anew, and the February election could become uncertain.
Political parties are not paying attention to how the elections can be free and fair, even though this is precisely what they should be focusing on. Instead, they are unnecessarily debating the date of the referendum.
On Friday morning, at a press conference, Jamaat-e-Islami’s nayeb-e-ameer Syed Abdullah Muhammad Taher accused the government of working in favour of a single party.
Jamaat’s arguments regarding the timing of the referendum are not reasonable. If the people support the referendum, they can vote on the same day as the parliamentary election. The main issue is whether they will support the four proposals individually or reject the entire package. In fact, holding the referendum before the election could reduce voter turnout. On the day of the parliamentary election, competing candidates will bring voters to the polling centres in their own interest. There is no reason to believe that any party that signed the July Charter will oppose the referendum. Low voter turnout in favour of the referendum would not only mean the defeat of a particular party but would also call into question the government’s entire democratic transformation process.
Political parties are not paying attention to how the elections can be free and fair, even though this is precisely what they should be focusing on. Instead, they are unnecessarily debating the date of the referendum.
On Friday morning, at a press conference, Jamaat-e-Islami’s nayeb-e-ameer Syed Abdullah Muhammad Taher accused the government of working in favour of a single party. He said, “I want to make it very clear that today three advisers are misleading the Chief Adviser in various ways. By providing false information and manipulating the situation, they are working on behalf of one party to prevent the government from holding a free and fair election. They are trying to do this subtly.” On the same day, he also described holding the referendum and the election simultaneously as a trap.
Meanwhile, BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed, at a gathering organised by the Women and Children Rights Forum, said, “In this country, there is a political party that does business in the name of religion, selling promises of heaven to get votes, and even women are exploited by them.”
Recently, in opposition to Jamaat’s proposal to reduce women’s working hours, Salahuddin Ahmed said, “Reducing working hours is directly opposed to employment. If women’s hours are reduced, employers will be less willing to hire them. This will further reduce women’s employment opportunities. Therefore, those advocating for reducing women’s working hours have bad intentions.”
In election negotiations, three parties were previously active—BNP, Jamaat, and NCP. Now that NCP has fallen slightly behind, the conflict between the other two parties has intensified. They have no concern for the countless problems of the people, the worsening economic crisis, unemployment, and rising poverty.
In reality, a psychological struggle is underway among political parties ahead of the election. They are more concerned about whether the other side gained more advantage than whether the government accepted their own demands. Democracy means moving forward together, building trust among political parties despite differences in ideals and principles, and breaking the paralysis of distrust. Without achieving this, no matter how much legal basis the July Charter provides or how many amendments are made to the constitution, democracy will not be sustainable, and parliament will not function effectively.
On the day the Chief Adviser delivered his address to the nation, the country was tense over the announcement of a date for the verdict in a case at the International Crimes Tribunal. In some areas, there were scattered blockades, attacks on vehicles, and crude bomb explosions. Because of the security measures taken by the government during the 'lockdown' by the Awami League whose activities are now banned, many parts of Dhaka were relatively empty, and people avoided taking vehicles out of fear.
The court had set the verdict date for the 17th, and the party announced a two-day shutdown. To manage this situation, the government should take strict measures for public safety, but it should not create panic among the people. Security measures for public safety cannot be selective. Law enforcement arrested Awami League activists and supporters for arson on vehicles or crude bomb explosions, which is commendable. However, why was no one arrested for setting fire to Awami League offices? The government’s selective security measures create anxiety rather than reassurance among the public.
#Sohrab Hasan is a journalist and poet
*Opinions are the author’s own