(News Credit en.prothomalo.com) Bangladesh now stands at a crossroads, much like in a Robert Frost poem. Two divergent paths lie ahead. One leads to political deadlock, economic downturn, global crises, and uncertainty. The other offers a roadmap to restoring democracy—reaching a consensus on the "July Charter" and holding elections accordingly.
The "July Charter" was supposed to be adopted back in July of this year. That deadline has passed. Despite two extensions of the National Consensus Commission, no resolution has yet been reached. If the process is not completed within the third and final deadline—15 October—there will be serious risks to political stability, public trust, and prospects for reform.
At the United Nations, Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus reiterated the commitment to holding elections by mid-February 2026. However, in a meeting with human rights activists in New York, he issued a stark warning: "Certain forces are determined to prevent the election from happening... massive amounts of money, both domestic and foreign, are involved... the next few months are extremely critical."
This is why ending all division, distrust, and uncertainty is absolutely urgent.
The path of division
On a hopeful note, there is relatively little disagreement over the content of the July Charter. The main debate lies in how it should be implemented. Short-term political gains are further fueling this disagreement. But one must not forget: excessive experimentation with the foundational structure of the state can be dangerous in the long run.
Several anti-authoritarian political parties participating in the dialogue have not yet reached consensus on key aspects of the July Charter. In this situation, some have proposed a referendum on the points of disagreement or "notes of dissent." They are suggesting that voters be presented with separate packages—those issues agreed upon and those not.
If the Consensus Commission recommends this approach, it would trap voters. A referendum structured in this way does not offer voters a clear method to support some proposals and reject others. Granting legitimacy to division in this way is a risky move.
It is well known that referendums are generally held to confirm existing political consensus. For example, in 1991, all parties had agreed to return to parliamentary democracy, and the referendum merely endorsed that consensus. Voters were asked: "Should the President give assent to the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Bill, 1991 of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh?"
That amendment proposed restoring the parliamentary system. But in the current situation, there is no such consensus on the issues being raised under the "notes of dissent." If progressive issues like women's representation are stalled by a referendum, it may block future progress and solidify regressive positions.
Signing the July Charter is a political decision. Trying to resolve political disputes through a referendum could create new crises. The Brexit referendum in the UK, rather than breaking a deadlock, led to deep division. Bangladesh cannot afford to take such a risk. Legalising division through a referendum could have disastrous consequences. Political consensus must emerge from dialogue—not from divisive ballots.
It is worth remembering that the Consensus Commission and its experts had initially proposed issuing a constitutional order under Article 22 of the "July Declaration" to provide a legal framework for the July Charter.
However, Article 27 of the Declaration clearly states that its implementation will be carried out by the parliament formed after the next election. Fortunately, they did not pursue that alternative route.
Another divisive proposal is to implement the July Charter through a decree or order issued by an interim government. Such an approach would suffer from a lack of legitimacy. In Pakistan, military rulers have used decrees to erode democratic institutions. In Latin America, presidential decrees issued without parliamentary oversight have led to prolonged constitutional crises.
There is currently a movement demanding the adoption of a proportional representation (PR) electoral system in all chambers. However, the July Declaration includes a consensus on holding elections to the lower house using the existing method, and no political party has submitted a note of dissent on this issue.
Proportional representation systems generally work only when a country has strong institutions and a fully independent electoral body. In a context like Bangladesh, where political party structures are highly centralised, institutions are weak, and public trust in the electoral process is still being rebuilt, introducing a PR system would create new complications.
For example, in Sri Lanka, a mixed electoral system failed to reduce political polarisation. In Nepal, since 2008 (excluding the current post-uprising government), the government has changed 13 times. In Bangladesh’s current context, stability is essential. Introducing new complexities would go directly against that need.
The path to a solution
Following the ouster of the ruling regime by a mass uprising, a vacuum in governance is not permissible. Therefore, under the doctrine of necessity and guided by Article 106 of the Constitution, the interim government is operating based on advisory references provided by the Supreme Court. The Constitution has neither been suspended nor abolished—it remains in force. As such, the interim government is not a revolutionary regime.
Constituent power lies with the people, and it is through elections that the people exercise this power. Any attempt to bypass electoral and parliamentary legitimacy directly contradicts the core spirit of the July Uprising. The goal of the uprising is not to diminish democracy, but to restore it. The only lasting solution lies in returning to democratic governance through the people’s vote.
In this context, the consensus-based elements of the July Charter can be presented to the public either through election manifestos or via a referendum. On the other hand, parties can compete over the non-consensus issues by including them in their electoral promises. The people will ultimately decide. There will be compromise in some areas, competition in others, but the final judgment rests with the people.
It is also important to note that some provisions of the July Charter would require changes to the basic structure of the Constitution. According to the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case in India (1973), and judgments by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, the Constitution's basic structure cannot be altered through ordinary amendments. Therefore, any such fundamental changes may be put to a referendum.
The way forward lies in the ballot
The current impasse is not only political, but also an economic crisis. Nearly 9 per cent of the population lives in extreme poverty. One in four highly educated youth is unemployed. Rising inflation has made life unbearable for workers and people in the informal sector. Prolonged political stagnation and growing economic pressure could trigger social unrest.
The "July Charter" is a living document reflecting the sacrifices and aspirations of the people. Its vision can only be realised through popular vote. Completing this process within the current term of the Commission is essential. The July Charter is not something to be imposed—it must be legitimised through the people’s will. Centering on the July Charter, the democratic process remains the only path to realising Bangladesh’s inherent potential and reviving its democracy.
*Rashed Al Mahmud Titumir is a Professor, Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka.
*The views expressed are the author’s own.