A charter is an agreed document whose terms are binding. The “July Charter,” publicly announced with pomp and ceremony on October 17, 2025, and signed by various parties, does not seem to be a charter. It is not implementable, as there is no agreement among the political parties even on the most fundamental issues of a functioning democracy.
Our governments have a long tradition of creating a false aura around events like this, with very little substance, to mislead the public.
Attempting to convey to the nation that something substantial has been accomplished is outrageously fallacious. After all this time, round after round of talks, when the nation has long been awaiting some good news, a document is presented, but the most critical terms look to remain unresolved.
The critical issues of a social contract are to establish proper checks and balances, create a separation of powers, and place limits on power, such as limiting the prime minister's power and decentralizing the judiciary and the executive branches of government.
The condition that a party leader cannot be the PM or the speaker of the houses is an extremely important term that enables a party to confront the PM when she or he goes out of line.
There are other critical terms that the major parties also did not agree on. Therefore, this charter is neither binding nor a framework for a future constituent assembly, if any, to comply with.
The mandate of the July Uprising, a nationwide organic and spontaneous movement -- in which 1400 people were killed and thousands were injured -- was to establish a new system that would provide a roadblock to tyranny and a foreign power turning Bangladesh into a vassal state, and compel a government to remain accountable to the people. This document is insufficient to achieve any of these goals.
The situation looks as dark and hopeless as it was during the Hasina regime or earlier regimes under which Bangladesh has always been a victim -- for 54 years and counting. The mandate of the 1971 Liberation War, in which countless people have sacrificed their lives to establish a functioning democracy, has not materialized since.
The present charter made a mockery of that collective will of the people. It is most likely that the present status quo is going to take Bangladesh back to square one, back to the authoritarian era.
We have a dark backdrop of exponential corruption and crime with endless impunity, highly politicized institutions -- especially the bureaucracy, military, and police. Then there is the issue of the PM practically becoming a modern-day pharaoh, and the heavy influence of foreign powers in our decision-making process. All of this led to authoritarian governments behind the façade of the dead structure of democracy.
A double-edged sword
If done half-heartedly or disingenuously, using a rigged method, a referendum may provide unprecedented legitimacy to an authoritarian regime, as it took place in Egypt and Thailand. Or that would enable the majority to marginalize the minorities, as has happened in Iraq. The key is to make the people fully understand the issues at stake before they give their seal of approval.
To help people understand enough, I suggest two preconditions to ensure the referendum's success.
First, mobilize all media outlets to invest substantial airtime in public service during this rare, historic moment and to host discussions and debates on each carefully selected referendum issue for a few months before the referendum takes place.
Second, the reform commission should recruit a few thousand students and teachers of political science and give them a crash course to hold small, agile workshops nationwide to explain and answer questions from fellow citizens, face to face.
And then arrange the referendum under a caretaker body approved by all the political parties, or by a majority of them.
These two steps would not only ensure a fair and free referendum but also help revolutionize the country's mindset.
By the time this session is over, it is most likely that countless people in Bangladesh will be aware of several key terms that could preserve the republic. This understanding would encourage the public to remain constantly vigilant and active, making Bangladesh a participatory democracy.
To sustain a functioning democracy, two factors are vital.
First, there should be sound principles laid down in the Constitution that ensure proper checks and balances and a peaceful transfer of power.
Second, the public must remain involved and vigilant. A successful national referendum can create both impetus for self-rule.
Referendum should be held only for three to five key issues, about which a simple but adequate explanation should be made before taking the vote. Only the most fundamental and essential issues should be in the referendum. These issues could be as follows:
The issues of the referendum
The National Constitutional Council (NCC) is a groundbreaking and innovative idea that, if implemented, could bring about a paradigm shift in governance in Bangladesh.
The aim is to create a body that can limit the concentration of power (especially in the office of the PM), improve checks and balances among the vital state institutions, and bring impartiality and accountability into the appointment of key constitutional and statutory officials, and manage or oversee some of the functions currently dominated by the executive.
It would have the power to appoint (or oversee the appointment of) key constitutional posts and commissions such as the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, Heads of constitutional commissions (eg, Human Rights Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission), and the chiefs of the armed forces and the Attorney General.
It would remain in effect even when Parliament is dissolved, particularly during an interim government or election period. It may have a role in selecting the advising body in such situations. In short, NCC would address many flaws of the present Constitution, which former PMs and other rulers have exploited to become tyrants.
The other important fact is that the more power a PM has, the more the regime becomes a target of a foreign power seeking to establish an undue influence on the government or turn it into a puppet regime. History is a testament to that.
It is equally valid that when an unpopular political party comes to or stays in power through rigged elections, such a regime is more dependent on a foreign power to remain in power. Either of these scenarios victimizes the public by robbing their voting rights and subjecting them to rampant corruption, abuse of power, and crimes.
Granted, the broad decision-making process of NCC’s members, each perhaps with different and conflicting political interests, may at times be challenging. However, when the feature is made part of the “basic structure” or an indispensable term of the republic, the members of the Council would learn the dealings, wheeling, and compromises of politics.
The other issues of a referendum should be the terms the Reform Commissions suggested:
- The party head should not be the PM or the speaker
- A parliamentary member has the freedom of choice even against his or her own party, except in particular situations
- Decentralization of the judiciary.
Since the political parties failed to reach a consensus on the above basic terms, the people’s verdict should decide on these issues.
Reforms benefit the nation and political parties
The above-suggested terms, if incorporated into the Constitution, will not only serve the nation better but also be in the best interest of the political parties, especially the ruling party.
A major political party functions best when operating within an established democratic structure and under healthy rules of law. A party in power often loses credibility and moral integrity before the people, leading to a loss of trust and confidence when it becomes reckless, corrupt, and a power usurper.
A party is a pyramidal structure; often, it cannot be managed well from the top down in the absence of a democratic, well-functioning system within the party and in the broader political landscape.
A functioning democracy is a win-win proposition; it is good for the nation and for a party’s long-term interest. Healthy constraints help maintain ethics and efficiency within a political party, and within the government it is entrusted with.
I delivered a speech at a seminar organized by Mahmudur Rahman Manna of the Nagorik Oikya Party, based on my Prothom Alo article from January 24, 2025. I spoke before some top leaders of the BNP and other parties. I urged that it is in the interests, especially of a major party, to give the responsibility for making key reforms to the interim government, a temporary, non-political government with the least conflict of interest.
Their primary interest is generally to create a legacy and a place in history. Since it is not political, it would ensure a sound system is created to sustain a republic.
In contrast, it is often members of a ruling party who create the biggest hurdles before major reforms.
We now need a paradigm shift, a radical reform in our system to address the corrupt and corrosive culture that has ruined our self-rule for the last 54 years. The Liberation War and the July Uprising established a clear mandate for the necessary paradigm shift to ensure good governance.
Ruby Amatulla is Executive Director of Muslims for Peace, Justice and Progressive and Women for Good Governance.