July Charter in Its Tatters, BNP’s Rejection of Constitutional Reforms Bodes Ill for Bangladesh’s Future
The sweeping victory of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party in that country’s general elections and the installation of its government is a welcome return to democracy. The good thing about the outcome is that Bangladeshi people have chosen a secular party to lead them, firmly sidelining the 11-party alliance led by the more communal Jamaat-e-Islami.
Jamaat had been the main force behind the hate campaign against minority Hindus in the country that resulted in mass persecution and several killings. If Jamaat had captured power, Bangladesh was set to slide deeper into the Islamic fundamentalist abyss. The new government is expected to deal firmly with violence against minorities, if only to burnish the country’s image as an emerging modern nation.
However, that is about where the positives end. Elections in Bangladesh were not about merely installing a new government. They were also supposed to usher in new constitutional reforms that would ensure that the circumstances that resulted in the popular uprising of July 2024 were not repeated.
The Promise of the July Charter
That uprising led to the ouster of Sheikh Hasina as prime minister and her exile in India. The reforms that emerged from this historic movement had been codified in the July National Charter. They were championed by Muhammad Yunus, the head of the caretaker government that was installed following the Gen Z uprising.
The charter was put to vote parallelly with the elections and won a bigger approval from the voters than the BNP. It secured nearly 70% yes votes, which is more than what any party has won in any election. Following this, a Constitution Reforms Council was formed to discuss and further refine it and then incorporate the provisions in the Bangladeshi constitution.
The charter aims to avoid concentration of power in one person or one party for long. This is meant to prevent capture and manipulation of institutions like the judiciary and the election commission by the government of the day. Among other things, the charter provides for the creation of an upper house of parliament to be filled on the basis of proportional representation instead of the first-past-the-post system that gives disproportionate power to the victorious party. It also provides a strict two-term (10 years) limit for a prime minister.
There are also provisions that would keep appointments to the judiciary and the election commission outside the sole purview of the ruling party. Instead, they would be made by panels having wider representation, including the chief justice and members of the opposition. This would ensure these institutions remain free from influence of the executive.
The Roots of the Uprising
One of the main reasons why people revolted against Sheikh Hasina’s government was that it exerted undue influence on these two institutions. This resulted in the judiciary sending to jail or even handing out death sentences to Hasina’s political opponents while looking the other way at the transgressions of ruling party members. The same was the case with the election commission.
The 2024 uprising was not just about removing one leader; it was about changing a system that had allowed that leader to accumulate unchecked power. The July Charter was the institutional expression of that aspiration. It was the people’s answer to the question: how do we ensure this never happens again?
The BNP’s Rejection
BNP was always reluctant to go along with the charter. Following its massive victory, it has simply refused to be part of the process. Its newly elected MPs have taken oath as members of parliament but have declined to be members of the Constitution Reforms Council. While other parties have joined the CRC, it will remain defunct in the absence of BNP members.
The reason BNP is giving for abandoning the charter and ignoring the referendum on it is that there are no provisions for either in the constitution. It is pleading the supremacy of parliament that it now completely controls.
This may be technically true, but it is a disingenuous argument. If the letter of the constitution alone is to be followed, then the elections that got the BNP to power themselves are not legitimate. They were not conducted under a constitutionally elected government. If BNP is claiming legitimacy based on those elections, then it should also honour the overwhelming support shown to constitutional reforms through the same electoral process. To accept one result and reject another is plain duplicitous.
The Allure of Unchecked Power
BNP is looking at short-term ease of governance. When you have a brute majority in parliament, then it is just easy to have your way without being troubled by pesky judges or difficult election commissioners. But it is precisely the absence of these checks that results in political corruption, abuse of power, and eventual popular revolt.
Tarique Rahman should learn from the history of his own country, including his own party. All the governments, right from the very first one led by the country’s founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, had gone astray without essential checks on their power. Their overreach resulted in popular or military rebellion, often accompanied by gory assassinations.
The pattern is clear: unchecked power corrupts. The concentration of authority in a single individual or party leads inevitably to the manipulation of institutions, the suppression of dissent, and the alienation of the people. And the people, sooner or later, rise up.
The Global Context
It is true that constitutions of several countries allow political executives to have a say in appointments to supposedly independent institutions. These provisions were drawn up when even scoundrels acted with some restraint. They are meant to ensure that nobody particularly obstructive comes to occupy key positions. Political morality mandated that governments appoint people who were amenable to their thinking without being brazenly partisan. The extreme protection granted to the people appointed was meant to ensure that once in office they could act without fear of even the government of the day.
In the modern age though, political morality has been at a discount worldwide. Whether in the US or in India or in Bangladesh, institutions have seen their credibility eroded. The quality of people on them has declined, and so has the quality of their behaviour. Governments today are seeking not just favourable but servile behaviour from institutions that are meant to be at arm’s length.
Hence, constitutional provisions that take control of them away from executives make sense, more so in Bangladesh given the propensity of its governments to veer towards autocracy.
A Missed Opportunity
Tarique Rahman can embrace the changes and lead Bangladesh into a new era that can be an example for others. By sacrificing some power now, he could be his country’s hero for the ages. He could demonstrate that the BNP has learned from the mistakes of the past, that it is committed to building institutions, not just winning elections.
But he seems to be choosing a different path. By rejecting the July Charter and ignoring the clear mandate of the people expressed in the referendum, he is signalling that the BNP’s victory means BNP control, not democratic renewal. He is following the same old path that has often led to ruination.
Conclusion: The Tatters of Reform
The July Charter now lies in tatters. The overwhelming popular support it received has been ignored. The Constitution Reforms Council, without BNP participation, is a hollow shell. The aspiration for institutional change that powered the 2024 uprising has been set aside.
Bangladesh has a new government, but the old system remains intact. The same concentration of power that led to the excesses of the Hasina era now rests in new hands. The checks that could prevent future abuses have been rejected. The lessons of history have been ignored.
Too bad. Tarique Rahman could have been his country’s hero for the ages. Instead, he is following the same old path.
Q&A: Unpacking the July Charter Controversy
Q1: What was the July National Charter and why was it significant?
The July National Charter was a set of constitutional reforms proposed following the 2024 Gen Z uprising that ousted Sheikh Hasina. It aimed to prevent future concentration of power through provisions including: creation of an upper house with proportional representation, a strict two-term (10 year) limit for prime ministers, and independent appointment mechanisms for judiciary and election commission through panels with wider representation. It secured nearly 70% approval in a simultaneous referendum.
Q2: What was the root cause of the 2024 uprising?
The uprising was triggered by Sheikh Hasina’s government exerting undue influence over the judiciary and election commission. This resulted in the judiciary sentencing political opponents while ignoring ruling party transgressions, and an election commission that failed to ensure free and fair elections. The concentration of power allowed institutional capture, which the July Charter sought to prevent.
Q3: What is the BNP’s position on the July Charter?
The BNP has refused to participate in the Constitution Reforms Council formed to implement the charter. Its argument is that since the charter has no constitutional standing, parliament (which it now completely controls) is supreme. Critics call this disingenuous, noting that if the BNP accepts the legitimacy of elections held under an interim government, it should also respect the referendum results.
Q4: Why is the BNP’s rejection of the charter problematic for Bangladesh’s future?
By rejecting institutional checks, the BNP is concentrating the same kind of unchecked power that led to the Hasina era’s excesses. The charter’s provisions for independent judiciary and election commission were designed precisely to prevent future autocratic drift. Without these safeguards, Bangladesh remains vulnerable to the same patterns of institutional capture, political corruption, and eventual popular revolt that have marked its history.
Q5: What historical lessons does the article suggest Tarique Rahman should heed?
Every Bangladeshi government, from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman onward, has gone astray without essential checks on power. Their overreach resulted in popular or military rebellion, often accompanied by assassinations. The pattern is clear: unchecked power corrupts. By sacrificing some power now to build strong institutions, Rahman could have been a hero. Instead, by following the same old path, he risks repeating history’s tragedies.
