Under pressure from the leaders of the July Movement, the Consensus Commission had Professor Yunus draft the July Charter. The movement’s leaders said that without the Charter, they would not allow the election to take place. The Charter was prepared. Then the student leaders said that Professor Yunus must also make arrangements to implement it. He did that as well. The ‘yes–no’ referendum on the Charter will be held on the same day as the election.
Those who are highly enthusiastic about the Charter believe that all voters will say 'yes'. Those who have no interest are looking for answers—what the next steps will be. But what is clear is that none of the politicians are happy. Expecting our politicians to build unity through consensus is itself an immature thought. As a result, political conflict has intensified further.
In the name of the people, the Yunus administration has drafted this Charter. But how involved are the people in it? Do the people know what is inside this 'black box' of the Charter? I asked eight acquaintances one simple question: “Tell me, how will the election-time caretaker government be formed according to the Charter?” Every one of them failed to answer. Among them were physicians, professors, and former secretaries.
Six of them said that a former judge would head the government. Two admitted they did not even know where such information had been published. The reason they do not know is that the Commission held meetings with politicians day and night about the Charter, but did not involve the public. This is why no public enthusiasm has developed. Many have assumed that since there is so much fuss, it must be something good. When people go to vote, most will cast a 'yes' or 'no' vote in ignorance or uncertainty. How many people can read so many provisions of the Charter, and how many will actually understand them? That is the public’s perspective. What about the political parties?
It was at the NCP’s insistence that the Charter process began; but they were never heard loudly objecting to what was being written in the Charter—most of their dissatisfaction was about the process. After Yunus’s speech, the NCP’s position became somewhat ambiguous. When the other parties signed the Charter, the NCP did not. They said the reason was that no mechanism was outlined for how the Charter would be implemented. Now that an implementation framework has been put forward, the NCP has returned to its old argument: “This directive will not lead to fundamental reforms.”
NCP Member-Secretary Akhtar Hossain said, “In the directive issued to implement the July Charter, many matters remain unclear. Even though the NCP has not signed the Charter, it is expected that they will not support the ‘no’ vote.” Jamaat is satisfied with the contents of the Charter. However, they still want the referendum to be held before the election. Their biggest gain in the Charter is proportional representation (PR) and an upper house. If the referendum is held first, they believe PR will receive early validation and a victory for the Charter will work in their favour. If the vote is held simultaneously and the BNP wins a majority, PR may slip away through the ‘dissent’ mechanism.
The BNP showed no enthusiasm for the Charter from the very beginning. Their interest lies mainly in the parliamentary election. They signed the consensus document after submitting a pile of dissent notes. Although they thanked Professor Yunus after his speech, the thanks were essentially for arranging the referendum and the parliamentary election on the same day. Now the question is: what will their next move be?
I would say the BNP is testing the ground. The day after Professor Yunus’s speech, BNP Chairperson’s adviser and former Opposition Chief Whip Zainul Abedin Farroque urged voters to vote 'No' in the referendum. I do not know whether Farroque made this call with the party high command’s approval. The BNP is likely observing the public reaction and will not take an official position on 'Yes–No' before the election date is announced.
If the BNP formally decides to support the 'No' vote, it will cause a huge stir. Supporters of the Charter will try to brand the BNP as anti-reform. Since there is little public enthusiasm for the Charter, the BNP believes that whichever side they take, they will not have to pay any political cost. If the BNP eventually campaigns for the 'No' vote, the Charter will be in trouble. As the NCP has not yet signed the Charter, there remains some possibility that they too may support the 'No' side. If both parties choose 'No', the 'No' vote will almost certainly win. Even if only the BNP supports 'No', that possibility still remains.
Whether the Charter wins a 'Yes' or a 'No', many questions will arise. Many will ask whether the Yunus administration even had the mandate to work on such sweeping reforms. Given the messy state of today’s politics, their responsibility is not small. A great deal of effort, time, and energy has been spent on this Charter. The professor has said that if the Charter is approved in the referendum, he will present the next roadmap. But he has not said what will happen if the Charter is rejected. Let us take a look at what might happen after the election if 'Yes' passes, and what might happen if 'No' wins.
If the 'Yes' vote wins, six months of uncertainty ahead
If the Charter’s 'Yes' vote prevails, the new parliament may have to act as a Constituent Assembly for 180 days “in addition to its regular duties.” The roadmap does not specify when the new government will be formed. Jamaat and July Movement activists may demand that the Yunus administration remain in power until the Charter’s provisions are fully adopted into the Constitution. This means the Yunus government may stay on for an additional six months after February. If the BNP wins a majority, conflict between the BNP and the government may intensify over this issue. Another point of contention will be whether the BNP will allow the Charter provisions to pass in the Constituent Assembly, given the points on which they expressed dissent.
A new upper house will be formed, and it is expected that smaller parties may gain one or two seats through the proportional representation (PR) system. The Deputy Speaker will come from the opposition. The head of the next election-time government will be chosen from nominees put forward by both the ruling party and the opposition in the new parliament.
If the 'No' vote wins, a new government will come immediately
If the 'No' vote wins, the Yunus administration will likely have to resign without delay. The party that wins a majority will form the government immediately. No Constituent Assembly will be formed. Jamaat-e-Islami will be deeply disappointed, because there will be no proportional representation (PR) system and no upper house. There will be no immediate need to amend the Constitution. However, the opposition may still demand reforms in line with the Charter.
So, if the Charter is defeated, does that mean the next election-time government chief will not be a neutral figure? One positive aspect is that the Thirteenth Amendment, which was abolished by Hasina, has a strong chance of returning to the Constitution. As a result, the head of the future election-time government could be the most recently retired Supreme Court justice. A review petition filed by Badrul Alam Majumdar, General Secretary of SUJAN, against the abolition of the Thirteenth Amendment is awaiting a hearing. If it is resolved, it is expected that the Thirteenth Amendment will be reinstated in the Constitution.
Regardless of whether 'Yes' or 'No' wins in the referendum, everyone must remain calm afterward. Whichever side wins, the result must be accepted for the sake of the country’s stability, and the next roadmap must move forward. Politicians must stop bickering and do some real work for the country. No one should think that through these reforms, votes, or victories they can become permanent rulers. Do we need to explain through examples? Let me quote just one poet: “All the kings and monarchs of the world—where are those who ruled yesterday?”
*Saleh Uddin Ahmed is a writer and political analyst
[email protected]
#The opinion expressed is the author’s own.