The draft of the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order 2025 states that a referendum will be held on the constitutional reforms included in the July National Charter. The order and the part of the Charter related to constitutional reforms, as listed in its schedule, will be presented in the referendum to exercise the people’s sovereign power. For holding the referendum, necessary legal measures will be enacted by the Election Commission.

The ballot will contain the question: “Do you express your consent to the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order 2025 and the proposed constitutional amendments included in its Schedule-1?” Voters will mark ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on the ballot paper and place it in the designated box.

Schedule-1 includes 48 proposed amendments to the Constitution discussed by the Commission. Although the July Charter signed on October 17 included ‘notes of dissent’ from several political parties, these were omitted in the final schedule. This is where the controversy lies. Not all political parties agreed to all 48 proposals. At least 11 parties, including the BNP, had given notes of dissent on several issues. When the political parties signed the July Charter on October 17, these notes were mentioned in the document. Even with these dissents, 24 parties signed the Charter. But the recommendations for implementation ignored those objections.

If BNP and other dissenting parties stand together against the July Charter, what will happen then? Was this the intention behind the Commission’s referendum question—to divide the nation and create unrest? The National Consensus Commission has not only disregarded political parties’ objections but also kept citizens in the dark about the contents of these proposals. There are 48 in total—how many citizens even know about them? That’s why the Chief Adviser has said that the July Charter must be communicated to the people in every household before holding a referendum. Otherwise, it will be nothing but deceiving the nation.

Our past experience with referendums has not been pleasant. Since independence, Bangladesh has held three referendums—two administrative and one constitutional. The first was under President Ziaur Rahman in 1977, the second under President Hussain Muhammad Ershad in 1985, and the third on September 15, 1991.

The first referendum was held on May 30, 1977, to legitimize Ziaur Rahman’s rule as President after assuming office from his previous role as Army Chief. The question was whether citizens had confidence in President Major General Ziaur Rahman and his policies and programs. Zia announced the referendum on April 22, 1977, in a national broadcast. According to reports in *The Daily Ittefaq* on May 31, voting was conducted across 21,685 centers, with a total of 38.4 million voters. The official result claimed 88.1% turnout, with 98.9% voting ‘Yes’ and 1.1% voting ‘No’.

The second referendum was held on March 21, 1985, under President and Chief Martial Law Administrator Lt. General Hussain Muhammad Ershad. It sought to determine public confidence in his policies and his continuation in office until elections were held under the suspended constitution. As before, the ballot offered ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ options, with Ershad’s photo printed beside the ‘Yes’ box. According to the Election Commission, turnout was 72.2%, with 94.5% voting ‘Yes’. The BBC described the results as “ridiculous and unbelievable.” BBC’s Dhaka correspondent Ataus Samad remarked that polling centers had been empty all day, yet the result claimed 72% turnout.

Following the 1990 mass uprising, military ruler Ershad resigned on December 6, 1990. Three months later, on February 27, 1991, the fifth parliamentary elections were held, which BNP won. To transition from a presidential to a parliamentary system of government, a bill was unanimously passed in parliament on August 6, 1991. The referendum held on September 15, 1991, asked whether Acting President Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed would assent to the Twelfth Amendment establishing a parliamentary democracy. According to The Daily Ittefaq, 35.2% of eligible voters participated; 84.38% voted ‘Yes’, while 15.62% voted ‘No’. Though credible, the referendum raised ethical questions as nearly two-thirds of voters did not participate.

Before that referendum, a Referendum Act had been passed in parliament. Its preamble stated that since amendments to certain key constitutional provisions required public assent under Article 142(1A), it was deemed proper and necessary to enact this law to allow referendums on such questions.

This too has sparked debate. In a democracy, the executive, legislature, and judiciary are independent branches of government. One should not interfere in another’s domain. Questions have arisen about whether an appellate court verdict automatically takes effect and whether such decisions may face future challenges.

Therefore, the most prudent and democratic approach would be to leave implementation of the July Charter to an elected government. Let a free, fair, and impartial election be held first. The new parliament can then decide which provisions to keep or amend. Holding a referendum now, while keeping citizens in the dark, will only destabilize the nation and turn the July Charter itself into a subject of controversy.

The writer is a playwright and columnist. Email: auditekarim@gmail.com