Yunus’s referendum plan pleases none

The July National Charter has laid bare deep rifts among Bangladesh’s parties even as Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus tries a middle course, which is holding the referendum and the parliamentary election on the same day in February.

On timing, the camps are split. Jamaat-e-Islami, backed by six other religion-based parties, had demanded a referendum before the general election during street protests.

The BNP, in February, insisted the implementation order must preserve parties’ “notes of dissent” on Charter proposals.

The National Citizen Party (NCP) pressed for Yunus, not the president, to issue the order, citing his authority as head of the interim government.

Yunus’s nationwide address on Thursday unveiled the compromise: a same-day referendum and vote. But the final order did not incorporate certain dissent notes, and it was President Md Sahabuddin, not Yunus, who signed it after the Advisory Council approved the July Charter Implementation Order, 2025.

The backlash was immediate. The BNP accused Yunus of “violating” the Oct 17 Charter through his address.

Jamaat said the decision to twin the referendum with the election fell short of public expectations.

Analysts say the government has taken the only workable path.

Dhaka University’s professor Sabbir Ahmed, a political analyst, said the interim government acted to keep the process moving.

“The July Charter was created by the parties themselves. If row over dissent now blocks the referendum, the process would stall. The government’s action reflects practical realities.”

He urged speed. “The sooner the election schedule is announced, the more stable the situation becomes. If all parties put the referendum topics into their campaigns, there should be no problem.”

On substance, he added: “It is better to focus on four questions rather than many, because the referendum must take place.”

Former ambassador Humayun Kabir, a political observer, likewise called Yunus’s approach “suitable under the circumstances”.

“The government invited parties to participate. Since they did not, Yunus’s initiative created an opportunity. He has considered all angles and adopted a middle path, which will provide a roadmap for parties to move forward.”

The announcement caps nearly eight months of dialogue between parties and the National Consensus Commission, formed by the interim government to propose constitutional reforms.

Despite late-stage disputes over implementation, 25 parties ultimately signed the July National Charter, 2025 on Oct 17, alongside coalition leaders, Yunus and commission members.

On Oct 28, the commission handed Yunus detailed recommendations plus two draft orders. It left referendum timing open, either before polling day or on it — tossing the choice back to the government.

The drafts omitted the parties’ dissent notes on specific proposals. Jamaat and the NCP accepted that omission; the BNP opposed it.

With parties deadlocked, the government gave them a week to find consensus. After an emergency Advisory Council meeting, Law Advisor Asif Nazrul said urgent decisions would otherwise be needed on the referendum’s timing, content and treatment of dissent.

On Oct 31, Press Secretary Shafiqul Alam warned that if parties failed to decide, the interim government would. On Monday, Advisor Syeda Rizwana Hasan said the government itself would now decide on Charter implementation.

THE FAULT LINES

● Timing: Jamaat and allies wanted a pre-election referendum; the BNP preferred a same-day vote if dissent could be registered.

● Authority: The NCP urged Yunus to issue the order; in the event, the president signed it.

● Content: Omission of certain notes of dissent from the referendum questions angered the BNP, while Jamaat voiced broader dissatisfaction with simultaneity.

Whether Yunus’s middle way calms the politics or merely defers the fight now depends on how parties choose to campaign.

And whether voters, faced with four referendum questions and a crowded ballot, are persuaded that compromise is progress.

Changes to Referendum Questions

The Consensus Commission had initially recommended a procedure for implementing the July Charter, with a draft order proposing a single referendum question and a schedule encompassing 48 constitutional reform points.

The proposed question read: “Do you approve the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, 2025, and the constitutional reform proposals listed in Schedule-1?”

The 48 points listed the decisions reached by the commission, including 18 where parties had registered notes of dissent. The draft, however, schedule omitted these dissenting opinions.

Thursday’s official order reshapes the referendum entirely. The 48 constitutional reform points are now condensed into four questions.

The question reads: “Do you approve the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, 2025, and the following constitutional reform proposals enshrined in the July Charter?"

The four sections are:

A) During elections, the caretaker government, Election Commission, and other constitutional institutions will be formed according to the processes described in the July Charter.

B) The next parliament will be bicameral. The Upper House, comprising 100 members, will be formed based on parties’ proportional vote share in the national election. Any constitutional amendment will require approval from a majority in the Upper House.

C) Thirty proposals agreed upon by political parties in the July Charter will be implemented by the victorious parties in the next election. These include increasing women’s representation, electing a deputy speaker and parliamentary committee chairs from the opposition, limiting the prime minister’s term, expanding presidential powers, broadening fundamental rights, safeguarding judicial independence, and reforming local government.

D) Other reforms in the July Charter will be implemented according to party commitments.

Voters will express their opinion on these four sections with a single “yes” or “no” on referendum day.

Within Section A, six of the 48 reform points are included, which, if passed, will be implemented exactly as drafted in the July Charter. In five of these six points, one or more parties had previously filed notes of dissent, which have now been omitted.

The list of other constitutional institutions in Section A includes appointment procedures for judges, the Public Service Commission, the comptroller and auditor general, regulators, and the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Section B explicitly provides for forming the Upper House proportionally according to parties’ votes in the national election, ignoring BNP objections. While the BNP agrees on the Upper House’s formation, it prefers proportionality to reflect only Lower House election results.

A senior official in the Chief Advisor’s Office explained that Section C encompasses 30 reform proposals where no party had filed notes of dissent.

Any remaining constitutional reform points from the original 48, which do not fit within the first three sections, are included in Section D.

By consolidating 48 proposals into four sections, the interim government aims to simplify the referendum while preserving core reforms. Yet the omission of dissenting points has left some parties, particularly the BNP, dissatisfied.

The interim government believes that by holding the referendum on the same day as the parliamentary election, it ensures a streamlined implementation process while preventing delays or procedural deadlocks.

Political analysts suggest that the simplification may also help voters better understand the reform package and facilitate smoother parliamentary transitions post-election.

The reduction from 48 points to four questions represents a compromise intended to maintain momentum on constitutional reform while balancing competing political demands.

The Chief Advisor’s Office has emphasised that the four-question referendum will adequately reflect the July Charter’s objectives and receive public endorsement.

BNP leaders are particularly vocal about the omission of their dissenting points, arguing that the condensed format may obscure critical nuances in the reform proposals.

The Jamaat-e-Islami, meanwhile, continues to assert that their preference for a pre-election referendum was sidelined, despite agreeing to the broader package.

Parties Voice Dissatisfaction 

Salahuddin Ahmed, the BNP's representative in the National Consensus Commission dialogue, asserted in an immediate reaction that the July Charter had been "violated" by the chief advisor's address.

When asked how the breach occurred, he said the Charter was signed through a historic public ceremony witnessed by the entire nation, and printed copies of the signed document were available to all. These copies include the proposals, the parties’ endorsements, and the exact language of any notes of dissent.

“This was not a conventional note of dissent or a mere difference of opinion,” Salahuddin said. “It was clearly said if the dissenting parties mention their positions in their election manifestos and receive the people’s mandate, they can act accordingly. Now, has that position been abandoned? That is why I say the chief advisor has violated the very document he signed.”

Salahuddin said, “Only a few days ago, we made our party’s stance clear through a press conference that we would not accept any imposition beyond the signed July National Charter. Such additions will not create any binding obligation for the signatory parties.”

“I want to say again that many of these issues have been forced through. We were told to either say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions that fall outside the agreed Charter. The order issued [on Thursday] includes several new proposals, seemingly mixed with personal preferences.”

“Perhaps some parties are happy with this,” he added. “But are we not, instead of building national unity, heading towards division? Are we creating disunity within the state? Will the chief advisor take responsibility for this divide?”

The BNP leader said this was a new concept which had never been discussed, decided, or agreed upon within the National Consensus Commission.

He expressed confusion over why the chief advisor introduced these ideas into the order and proposals.

Salahuddin explained that the parliament will be formed through elections, with the Election Commission constitutionally responsible for both parliamentary and presidential elections. Accordingly, members of parliament will be elected and take their oaths through the standard process.

“Now, the order suggests that they will also take oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council. Were they elected to that council?” he questioned. “So these ideas are entirely new.”

Salahuddin raised concerns about authority and legality, noting that fixing a specific timeline and establishing such a council to propose constitutional amendments within 180 days may not be within anyone’s jurisdiction.

He asked whether directives issued to the next parliament in this manner would have legal validity, warning that it could “interfere” with the sovereign authority of parliament itself.

During the commission’s dialogue, the NCP called for a Constituent Assembly to draft a new Constitution, while the Ganosamhati Andolon and the Rastro Songskar Andolan demanded a Constitutional Reform Council.

Discover more
Opinion articles platform
daily
Automobile accessories
Politics news coverage
Environmental awareness campaigns
Photo printing service
Lifestyle products
Science news articles
News subscription service
Bilingual news content
Referring to the absence of such proposals in the July Charter, Salahuddin said: “If there had been any national consensus to form a Constituent Assembly or a Constitution Reform Council, then the Constitution would first need to be amended to empower the Election Commission for that purpose.”

“Are we now back to the pre-independence era that we need a Constituent Assembly?” he asked. “Bangladesh is not a new state; it already has a Constitution. So these imposed ideas are all contradictory.

“Even so, had there been genuine national consensus on any issue, such questions would not have arisen.”

He criticised the government and Consensus Commission for creating a “crisis”.

After a BNP Standing Committee meeting, the party, however, thanked Yunus for deciding to hold the genaral election and referendum on the same day.

The party also called on the government and Election Commission to hold a referendum to gain public consent on the July Charter signed on Oct 17 and to organise the national elections promptly.

On Tuesday, Jamaat and seven other parties held a Dhaka rally demanding legal validation of the July Charter, a referendum before the election, and proportional representation in both houses, among five key demands.

They later announced a sit-in near the chief advisor’s official residence.

Jamaat Secretary General Mia Golam Porwar said the people’s expectations were not fulfilled by the July Charter implementation order. “Voters need to know the legal basis of the July Charter, proposed constitutional amendments, and other reforms before the election so they can make an informed ‘yes’ or ‘no’ decision.

“Holding the referendum and election on the same day creates a crisis.”

He added that repeated requests and arguments have been made about potential election-day disruptions. “Even in caretaker-led elections, some centres face violence, closures, or delays. Holding both votes on the same day risks disrupting the process.”

NCP Senior Joint Convenor Samantha Sharmin said the government was “bringing back the old constitutional crisis narrative”, adding that having the president sign the July Charter was “regrettable” and risked placing Bangladesh in prolonged deadlock.

Former CPB general secretary Ruhin Hossain Prince said the referendum is “unnecessary” and, if needed, should follow the parliamentary election.

“Where did the Constitution Reform Council come from? There was no discussion on this. It is now unacceptable. Effective measures should be taken to announce a clear election date and ensure a free and fair election,” he added.

Syed Muhammad Rezaul Karim, chief of Islami Andolan Bangladesh, described holding the referendum and the parliamentary election on the same day as a “farce”.

“Such a declaration from the interim government after the July uprising was not what the people of the country expected,” he added.