There is little doubt that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has undoubtedly acquired formidable political strength by coming to power with a sweeping victory. How it chooses to deploy that strength in governing the state remains to be seen. Yet from the very outset, attention has inevitably turned to how the party will handle the issues of the referendum, implementation of the July Charter, and the proposed constitutional reform council.
We have already witnessed disagreement and controversy emerging at the very start of the new parliament’s formation. This is not a straightforward dispute. It carries constitutional and legal dimensions, as well as ethical and political implications. It must also be borne in mind that the 12 February election and the assumption of office by the new government did not occur within the framework of an ordinary democratic continuity. This followed a bloody mass uprising. Yet, divisions among political parties have become starkly visible at the very beginning of what was meant to be a renewed democratic journey through the formation of a new parliament and government.
The calculations surrounding the referendum, the implementation of the July Charter, and the constitutional reform council have become exceedingly complex. The July Charter was approved through a referendum. In a democracy, the people are sovereign. On that basis, there is no scope to disregard a charter endorsed by popular vote. At the same time, BNP has formally recorded notes of dissent on certain provisions of the July Charter. It presented itself to the electorate with that stated position, and secured a resounding mandate, including a two-thirds majority in parliament. The logical question, therefore, is how the July Charter is to be implemented in this context.
Since BNP signed the July Charter, it bears a moral obligation to implement its provisions, even excluding those points on which it registered dissent. Should the party, by virtue of its two-thirds majority in parliament or within a constitutional reform council, seek to sidestep the charter altogether, that would amount to a breach of commitment and run counter to the spirit of the uprising. The electorate would be unlikely to view favourably the use of overwhelming political strength in that manner.
Conversely, if the BNP refrains from implementing those specific provisions to which it formally objected, it cannot easily be faulted on ethical grounds. Whether one agrees or not, those objections constituted its declared political stance, and it was on that basis that the party won the election. The complication, however, lies in the fact that the referendum on the July Charter did not accommodate any notion of dissenting notes. Notably, the BNP did not reject the referendum; officially, it supported a ‘Yes’ vote.
Thus, the party now finds itself confronted by a tension between its overwhelming parliamentary mandate and the outcome of the referendum, with its earlier notes of dissent at the heart of the dilemma. The entire situation has become deeply entangled.
BNP members of parliament (MPs) have not taken the oath as members of the constitutional reform council. Members from Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party (NCP) have done so. This divergence is almost certain to create further complications. BNP’s questions regarding the council cannot simply be dismissed.
All actions, from the formation of the interim government following the 5 August (2024) mass uprising up to the present, have formally proceeded under the existing constitution. The 13th parliamentary election was conducted on that constitutional basis. There is no provision in the current constitution for a constitutional reform council. If such a body is to be created for the purpose of constitutional amendment, legislation establishing it must first be passed in parliament. How, then, could MPs take oath as members of such a council before that legislative step? This is the core of the BNP’s argument.
On the other hand, the July Charter (constitutional reform) Implementation Order 2025 explicitly stipulates that elected representatives shall take oath as members of the council at the same ceremony at which they are sworn in as MPs. Acting accordingly, the election commission (EC) arranged on 17 February for MPs to be sworn in simultaneously as members of the constitutional reform council. Members from Jamaat and the NCP took oath. Viewed in light of the July Charter Implementation Order and the commission’s initiative, their position, too, is rational.
The BNP’s overwhelming victory has rendered it politically dominant. Armed with a two-thirds majority, it could amend the constitution in parliament while setting aside the opposition forces. Alternatively, taking the July Charter into account, it could introduce and pass a ‘constitutional reform council bill’, thereby providing a clear legislative foundation for the council. In that case, MPs would have to take oath anew as members of the council under the authority of that law. But the MPs from Jamaat and the NCP have already been sworn in. Would they agree to a fresh oath?
Any such move by the BNP risks deepening instability and uncertainty in politics. The essential question is whether the party will expend its newly acquired political strength in prolonging disputes with opponents, or channel it towards effective governance and the establishment of good governance.
It is now evident that procedural deficiencies in the referendum and the July Charter Implementation Order have contributed significantly to the present crisis. Much debate has already taken place. However, we have reached a juncture where purely constitutional or legal argument is unlikely to suffice. The dispute has already cast a shadow over the inaugural day of the new parliament and government; Jamaat and the NCP abstained from the government’s swearing-in ceremony. The public had hoped for the beginning of a different political culture. Regrettably, that expectation has not yet been fulfilled.
There is no viable alternative to a political solution in resolving the complexities surrounding the constitutional reform council and the referendum. This can be settled only through political understanding and accommodation. In the present reality, alongside legal and constitutional considerations, the political dimension, including the spirit of the July uprising, cannot be ignored. As the governing party and the holder of a two-thirds parliamentary majority, the greater responsibility for forging such a political consensus rests squarely with the BNP.
*AKM Zakaria is deputy editor of Prothom Alo. He could be reached at [email protected]
* The views expressed are his own.