Bangladesh stands at a historic inflection point. The proposed July National Charter, prepared after months of deliberation under the National Consensus Commission (NCC), was meant to signal a new dawn of unity and institutional reform. Yet as the Charter moves toward a national referendum, controversy has emerged over its inclusivity and intent. What began as an effort to reconcile the nation’s divided political forces now risks deepening old wounds if handled without wisdom and balance.
The Making of the July National Charter
The July National Charter did not emerge overnight. In the wake of prolonged political polarization and an atmosphere of mutual distrust, the National Consensus Commission was formed in February 2025 to draft a framework for political and constitutional reform.
After several rounds of dialogue with all major political parties, the NCC produced a draft Charter including the notes of dissent, which was signed by the major political parties of Bangladesh (except NCP, Jatiya Party, and Awami League). The document was envisioned as a people’s contract—an outline for strengthening democratic governance, restoring electoral integrity, ensuring judicial independence, and promoting decentralization.
Initially, the initiative drew broad praise from academics, civil society groups, and even cautious optimism from political actors long accustomed to confrontation.
However, as the draft, prepared to be placed in the referendum, exluded the notes dissent. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and several smaller parties expressed frustration that their notes of dissent were excluded. They argued that the Commission, though consultative in form, had failed to reflect pluralism in substance.
The government’s announcement of a referendum—likely to be held alongside the national election in February 2026—intensified the debate. Critics feared that pushing ahead without opposition endorsement could undermine both the legitimacy of the Charter and the credibility of the democratic process itself.
The Stakes of the Referendum
The idea of submitting the July Charter to a popular referendum stems from an understandable impulse: to let the people, not politicians, decide. However, the context and structure of that referendum will determine whether it becomes a unifying moment or another episode of division.
1. The Exclusion of Notes of Dissent
The absence of the notes of dissent in the draft Charter is the most contentious issue. The BNP, along with several centrist and left-leaning parties, argues that this omission deprives citizens of the opportunity to judge all perspectives fairly. Their exclusion may lead to boycotts or active campaigning against the referendum—potentially skewing results and eroding its moral authority.
2. Risk of a Polarized Outcome
If the “No” vote wins, the rejection of the Charter could reignite the very divisions the NCC sought to heal. Even if the Charter is approved by a slim margin, without the participation of all key actors, it could lack the legitimacy to guide future governance.
3. Low Turnout and Questioned Legitimacy
Public fatigue and distrust of politics may also depress voter turnout. A charter adopted by a minority of the electorate would carry little transformative power. Legitimacy in constitutional reform depends as much on participation as on procedure.
Possible Pathways of Resolution
To rescue the July Charter from the shadow of confrontation, two practical models could be considered.
Formula 1: A Multi-Option Referendum
Instead of offering voters a binary Yes/No choice, Bangladesh could allow multiple Charter options reflecting the major political streams of thought.
-
Each major party would prepare its own version of the Charter within the NCC’s broad framework.
-
On election day, citizens would cast two ballots: one for their parliamentary candidate, another for their preferred Charter version.
-
If one version secures over 50% of the votes, it would be adopted as the National Charter.
-
If none crosses that threshold, a runoff referendum could be held between the two top drafts.
Such a pluralistic model would enhance ownership and minimize the perception that reform is being imposed by one side.
Formula 2: Thematic Referendum on Contested Issues
Alternatively, the referendum could focus only on specific contested questions within the Charter. For instance:
-
Parliamentary Structure: Unicameral or Bicameral
-
Electoral System: First-Past-The-Post or Proportional Representation
-
Executive Structure: Prime Ministerial or Mixed Executive
Citizens could vote on each issue separately, allowing nuanced democratic expression rather than a one-size-fits-all decision. Although such a referendum would require multiple voting days or regional scheduling, it would foster genuine deliberation and reduce polarization.
Formula 3: Dissent-Inclusive Revision
A simpler yet symbolically powerful alternative would be to publish and circulate all dissenting notes as annexes to the referendum draft. This approach would not alter the text but would honor transparency and inclusion—acknowledging that democracy is not unanimity but dialogue.
Why the Mentioned Formula Matters
Despite its controversies, the July National Charter remains one of the most ambitious attempts in recent memory to craft a shared vision for Bangladesh’s future. It offers a roadmap for reforming institutions, rebalancing power, and revitalizing public trust.
In a region where political transitions are often driven by confrontation, Bangladesh’s effort to pursue reform through consultation and public consent is remarkable. The challenge lies not in drafting a perfect document, but in building a process that every citizen can believe in.
If the referendum succeeds as an exercise in inclusivity, it could mark a turning point—transforming decades of mistrust into a new culture of cooperation. If it fails, it could plunge the nation into yet another cycle of recrimination and instability.
To ensure the success of the July National Charter, the mentioned formula matters.
Conclusion: Building Bridges, Not Walls
The July National Charter represents both a challenge and an opportunity. It can either deepen divides or become the bridge that reconnects a fractured polity. For that to happen, its architects must ensure that no voice feels excluded, no opinion is silenced, and no citizen is alienated from the process.
As Bangladesh prepares for the referendum and the next general election, it must remember that democracy’s strength lies not in uniformity but in the coexistence of differences. The Charter’s success will depend less on its text and more on the trust it builds among people who have long ceased to trust each other.
In the end, the July Charter should not be remembered as a document of division—but as a testament to the nation’s enduring capacity to choose dialogue over discord, and conciliation over confrontation.
