Will the referendum resolve the July Charter dispute?

Against the backdrop of the ongoing bickering among political parties over the implementation of the July Charter, Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on 13 November announced that a referendum will be held on the national elections day to seek the people's mandate in the literal sense.

The Chief Adviser, however, grouped all 48 constitution-related proposals, along with the notes of dissent on some of them, into four clusters for the referendum. Voters will be asked to cast a single vote — yes or no — for the entire set of four clusters.

Here lies the crux: many argue that voters have no opportunity to vote on the four points separately, noting that a single question covering four distinct points effectively constitutes a "leading question".

Well, the chief adviser must strike a careful balance to accommodate both the political parties' agreements and disagreements, as well as the broader vision for posterity. In his televised address to the nation — delivered in his trademark firm yet gentle tone — he said his government has been entrusted with three main responsibilities: bringing to justice those responsible for the genocide, undertaking the necessary reforms to establish an effective democratic system, and transferring power to an elected government through elections.

The set of four questions is like four fruits spread on a platter: you either take them or you don't. Yet the fruits differ — one may be sweet, another sour, and another neither sweet nor sour. It is a mixed platter — a blend of sweet, sour, and bitter, much like what is needed for a healthy, balanced life.

Agreements and disagreements in clauses and sub-clauses 

All parties agreed on several important issues such as limiting a prime minister's tenure, nominating four parliamentary standing committee chairs from the opposition, electing the President through secret ballots, and using referendums to amend certain constitutional articles. 

However, some parties submitted "notes of dissent" on specific clauses. For instance, while all support restoring the caretaker government system to oversee national elections every five years, they differ on certain steps for selecting the chief adviser.

One of the central debates concerned the composition of the proposed upper house in parliament — whether its members should be chosen based on proportional representation (PR) of seats won in the lower house or PR of the total votes received in the parliamentary elections.

Amending Article 70 was another point of debate. The proposed revision would allow MPs to vote against party lines — except on no-confidence motions and finance bills. Some parties, however, want this exemption extended to constitutional amendment bills and matters of national security.

The differences lie mostly in clauses and sub-clauses — disagreements that are normal in a democratic process.

That is why Professor Yunus noted, "While the public statements of political parties may appear contradictory, a closer reading of the July Charter reveals far less divergence in substance. This is our unique achievement and a source of national courage."

Row over implementation process of the charter   

The National Consensus Commission (NCC), which brokered the July National Charter — much like Bangladesh's Magna Carta — initially urged parties to complete the constitutional and legal reforms outlined in the charter within two years of taking office. 

However, after months of deliberation and numerous suggestions, the NCC submitted its framework to the Chief Adviser, proposing a referendum on the July Charter either before or on the day of the 13th parliamentary election. The NCC, however, excluded the parties' notes of dissent from the referendum.

If approved by voters, the next parliament would form a Constitutional Reform Council with 270 days to pass the constitutional reform bill; in the event of failure, the bill would be enacted automatically.

Following the NCC's recommendations, political parties reacted in a familiar fashion, airing grievances and placing fresh demands. BNP insisted that the referendum be held on election day to avoid additional public expenditure, that the notes of dissent be included as originally signed in the Charter, and that the automatic enactment provision be removed to uphold parliamentary supremacy.

Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, however, demanded that the referendum be held before the national elections and that the proposed upper house be formed through proportional representation based on each party's total votes. NCP (National Citizens Party) called for a legal foundation for the July Charter and specifically sought to empower the Chief Adviser — rather than the President — to issue the Charter's implementation order.

The interim government gave anti-fascist parties seven days to reach a unified position on the referendum date and other pending issues. Law Adviser Asif Nazrul urged consensus among the reformist forces but warned that, in the event of failure, the government would "take its own course." All parties, however, had earlier agreed to hold the referendum to seek the people's mandate on the proposals.

The interim government as referee 

It was always unlikely that the parties would reach full consensus — and that is not a weakness of the process. Uniform agreement signals authoritarianism, not democracy. In such moments, the interim government must act as referee and resolve outstanding issues. The government's latest package aims to accommodate all demands it deems reasonable.

Although BNP has welcomed holding the election and referendum on the same day, its recent statements are concerning. Salahuddin Ahmed, who represented the party in NCC meetings, now insists that BNP will implement only its July Charter pledges if elected. The party had earlier raised a legitimate concern about the exclusion of the notes of dissent. 

In response, the government grouped all major issues into four clusters, giving voters the final say. The fourth cluster ensures that all remaining July Charter reforms — those not covered by the other three questions — will be implemented in line with the commitments made by the political parties.

The set of four questions is like four fruits spread on a platter: you either take them or you don't. Yet the fruits differ — one may be sweet, another sour, and another neither sweet nor sour. It is a mixed platter — a blend of sweet, sour, and bitter, much like what is needed for a healthy, balanced life.

BNP's main objection now appears to be the proposal for an upper house elected through proportional national votes. Salahuddin Ahmed claims voters are being coerced into an "all or nothing" choice, particularly regarding this provision. However, the second referendum point clearly outlines a bicameral parliament in which constitutional amendments require approval from a proportionally elected upper chamber.

What, then, is BNP's rationale for opposing a system that would surely prevent unilateral constitutional changes? An upper house based solely on lower-house proportionality and without a role in constitutional amendments — as BNP prefers—would be a white elephant. Had a vote-based upper house existed earlier, the abolition of the caretaker government system in 2011 would not have been possible.

BNP must also respect the mandate of 12.61 crore voters and clarify its position ahead of the 2026 election. This is particularly important given the party's long-standing commitment to reforms, reflected in its 31-point agenda (2023) and Vision 2030 (2016), both of which share significant similarities with many of the NCC's proposals.

The referendum question is not a leading one, as some suggest. It presents a straightforward choice: do citizens want the reforms outlined in four issues that emerged after months of NCC deliberations? 

It should also be noted that, throughout the discussions, both the parties and the Commission softened their original positions. Total accommodation is never possible. In his address, Professor Yunus said, "Recognising the July Charter as the primary document, the interim government has approved the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, 2025."

For BNP, Jamaat, NCP, and others, the priority must now shift to preparing for the elections, for which there is no alternative.

Sketch: TBS