The long-standing debate—reform first or election first—seems to have somewhat subsided. The National Consensus Commission has already declared the "July Charter", a document comprising 84 points focused on constitutional reform, reinstatement of the caretaker government system, reforming the judiciary, civil and police administration, and anti-corruption measures. The BNP, currently the largest political party in the country in the absence of the Awami League, has formally communicated its objections to certain clauses of the July Charter.
Firstly, they refused to accept any political consensus document as superseding the Constitution. They have also strongly objected to signing any commitment that would prevent judicial challenges to the Charter.
BNP’s earlier objections still stand regarding provisions in the July Charter such as barring any individual from serving as prime minister for more than 10 years, preventing the same person from holding both the positions of prime minister and party chief, and electing 100 upper house members in proportion to lower house votes.
Nevertheless, in the interest of a national election, the BNP has expressed willingness to compromise where necessary. They believe that only those reforms that achieve national consensus should be implemented immediately, with remaining reforms to be considered by the next Parliament.
Meanwhile, Jamaat-e-Islami, the second-largest opposition party, has stated that unless the July Charter is fully implemented before the polls, doubts about the election’s credibility will remain.
While Jamaat does not necessarily oppose BNP’s objections, they appear to believe that pre-election reform—where feasible—is necessary to ensure a doubt-free election.
Those who have read the July Charter will recognise it as a blueprint for major constitutional transformation. There is no legal obstacle to holding the next general election in February next year based on this Charter. Bangladesh has past precedents of incorporating such declarations into its Constitution, with the most notable being the Proclamation of Independence announced by the provisional government on 10 April 1971, widely considered the country's first constitution.
Given its context, the July Charter is a protective framework for the nation. Constitutional experts argue that, in the event of any conflict between the Charter and the existing Constitution, the Charter should take precedence, as it reflects a form of public mandate, a kind of referendum long absent from Bangladesh’s political landscape. They believe the Charter offers a means to overcome the prevailing constitutional crisis.
In November 1990, during the movement to overthrow military dictator Hussein Muhammad Ershad, the "Three Alliances Framework" was declared. This included provisions for an interim caretaker government under an acting President to conduct elections within three months. Based on this framework, non-partisan parliamentary elections were held on 27 February 1991, which subsequently led to constitutional amendments establishing the parliamentary system.
Unfortunately, not all proposals from the Three Alliances Framework were implemented. At the time, the BNP was in power while the Awami League, Jatiya Party, and Jamaat were in opposition. Over time, political self-interest led both ruling and opposition parties to disregard the framework in favour of partisan politics.
However, that document was one of the few unified efforts by democratic forces to lay the foundation for good governance. In this light, there should be no objection to implementing the July Charter—it represents a roadmap for liberation from the authoritarian rule of Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League.
Had Bangladesh’s governance been successful, today’s debates around the Constitution, elections, and administration might not have arisen. No one questions the democratic character of the 1972 Constitution, based on the Proclamation of Independence. While questions did arise about whether the 1970-elected National Assembly members (elected for Pakistan) could draft a Constitution for an independent Bangladesh, the Constitution was drafted and enacted. Later, its core principles—particularly socialism and secularism—were challenged.
Had the 1972 Constitution remained intact, perhaps major political issues such as electoral credibility would not have emerged. But just three years later, the Constitution’s own authors—led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman—abandoned the parliamentary system, claiming it was failing the country. In its place, they imposed a one-party presidential system aimed at ushering in a so-called ‘golden era’.
The Awami League’s claim of sole credit for Bangladesh’s independence led to a dangerous sense of absolutism and helped pave the way for military rule. In their desperate bid to hold onto power permanently, they became blind to the disastrous consequences of their actions. The party's supreme leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and his spineless lieutenants failed to realise the devastating fallout for the nation, the people, and themselves.
As a result, the one-party BAKSAL regime launched by Sheikh Mujib on 24 February 1975 lasted barely five months and 19 days. It met a tragic end with his assassination on 15 August 1975. In changing the spirit of the 1972 Constitution, Mujib not only derailed democracy but also created a constitutional impasse from which the country has yet to recover. The seeds of mistrust he sowed have grown into a massive tree: no one trusts a sitting government to conduct free, fair, and impartial elections anymore.
This widespread mistrust gave birth to the caretaker government system. While elections are held under incumbent governments in most democracies worldwide, Bangladesh created a global anomaly by transferring this responsibility to a three-month caretaker government—an extraordinary move reflecting the total collapse of political trust.
The demand for a caretaker government was first raised in 1981, and it took 15 years of struggle to be realised in 1996. Ironically, it took another 15 years for the same demand to be overturned. Jamaat-e-Islami initially led the push for the caretaker system, which was later hijacked by the Awami League to defeat the BNP. After winning an absolute majority in the 2008 general election, the Awami League scrapped the caretaker system from the Constitution in 2011, ensuring that future elections would be held under its own government. The nature of the next three elections is well known.
Bangladesh had every reason to succeed as a nation. It has all the traits of a democratic state—geographically unified, linguistically homogenous, with nearly 90% of its population sharing the same religion. Apart from a few small ethnic groups, the nation is ethnically uniform.
Yet it lacks two vital elements: political freedom and a robust, stable democratic system. Without these, the country takes one step forward and two steps back. Despite its advantages, repeated authoritarian regimes—both military and civilian—have robbed the people of their sovereignty, placing the country under the whim of individuals and parties in power.
Twelve general elections have been held since independence, each intended to last a full five-year term. In theory, this should have meant 60 years of legislative stability. However, six parliaments failed to complete their terms. While the remaining six did last their full duration, the 10th (2014) and 11th (2018) parliaments were products of questionable elections.
The most disgraceful election occurred in 2024, leading to the formation of the 12th Parliament. However, it too collapsed after just six months due to a popular uprising, adding to the list of parliaments that could not complete their term.
Despite these numerous elections, can anyone confidently claim that even one Parliament reflected the true will of the people? That citizens had a meaningful role in policymaking? That their elected representatives were held accountable?
Not one parliament fulfilled the hopes of the public. The core reason is the absence of a level playing field and inclusivity in any of the elections. Dominant parties have used muscle, rigged votes, seized polling centres, and secured victory by manipulation. All governments—whether they completed their terms or not—eventually turned authoritarian. Each outgoing government left behind corruption cases, and many ministers and MPs were later convicted. This cycle has continued for 54 years.
It must end. That’s why there is hope that the next general election will be held in accordance with the July Charter and that the resulting Parliament will undertake a comprehensive constitutional overhaul in its spirit.
The writer is a senior journalist and translator based in the United States.
