Exactly one year ago, on October 17, 2025, political parties signed the Charter at a grand ceremony at the South Plaza of the National Parliament Building.
Months later, on February 12 this year, the BNP-led alliance came to power following an election that observers described as “credible and competitive”.
A year after the signing of the July National Charter, the optimism that accompanied the landmark political agreement has given way to disillusionment among opposition parties, with several accusing the BNP-led government of betraying the spirit of the July uprising and disregarding the people's verdict in the referendum.
Political leaders who actively participated in the National Consensus Commission's reform discussions told Daily Waadaa that the government was moving away from the principles and process agreed upon to restructure the state after the mass uprising. They fear that the government's refusal to implement the referendum-backed July National Charter Implementation Order through the Constitution Reform Council will derail the reform agenda and preserve the concentration of power that the uprising sought to dismantle.
The BNP, however, has repeatedly pledged to implement the charter “to the letter”.
Opposition leaders counter that the government's actions contradict that promise, with National Citizen Party (NCP) member secretary Akhtar Hossen describing its approach as “betrayal to the letter”.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the charter's constitutional reforms should be implemented through the Constitution Reform Council, as envisaged in the referendum-backed implementation order, or through amendments passed by the existing parliament.
Despite their ideological differences, opposition politicians broadly agree that the reforms require structural changes to the Constitution and that the people's verdict vested the mandate for those changes in the Constitution Reform Council. They accuse the BNP of undermining that mandate from the first day of the new parliament by refusing to take the oath as members of the council.
The government has instead formed a Constitutional Amendment Committee to pursue reforms through parliament, a move opposition parties say bypasses the agreed process and weakens the legitimacy of the referendum outcome.
For these leaders, the controversy goes beyond the mechanism of constitutional change. They fear that abandoning the agreed roadmap could unravel the political consensus forged after the uprising and leave the country's old power structures largely intact.
Hasnat Kaiyum, president of the State Reform Movement (Rastro Songskar Andolon), warned that the government's approach could have lasting consequences for democratic politics by undermining public trust in political parties.
“It sets a precedent that political parties are not necessarily bound to honour their political commitments in the future,” he said.
Kaiyum said repeated failures to fulfil political promises had taught people not to trust parties with power before the changes for which people had mobilised and sacrificed their lives were implemented.
“We missed our opportunity in 1971, and we missed the roadmap of the three alliances. This time, too, we missed it despite the highest level of preparation,” he said.
He nevertheless believes the reform process can still be revived, noting that parliament has yet to complete 180 working days. He said lawmakers could still take the oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council and proceed in line with the referendum-backed roadmap.
Opposition leaders argue that the BNP's resistance to key proposals in the July National Charter reflects a reluctance to accept institutional constraints on its authority.
Akhtar identified three central elements of the reform agenda: a caretaker government system acceptable to both the ruling and opposition parties, a proportionally elected upper house of parliament, and independent and impartial constitutional institutions.
He alleged that the BNP wanted to retain political control over these institutions, particularly the caretaker government responsible for overseeing future elections.
“They want the next caretaker government to be subservient to them as well. They do not want to implement these reforms because they want to be able to appoint someone loyal to them as its head. They are not prepared to accept anyone new,” he said.
“Unless they have a tendency to enjoy absolute power, there is no other reason for opposing these reforms,” he added.
Akhtar also challenged the BNP's claim that it would implement the charter “to the letter”, arguing that the party was invoking its recorded notes of dissent against reform proposals rather than committing to the proposals themselves.
“When Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed or any other BNP leader says they will implement the July Charter to the letter, what they actually mean is implementing the notes of dissent,” he said.
The NCP leader said opposition lawmakers were justified in refusing to join the government's Constitutional Amendment Committee because, according to the referendum outcome, decisions on constitutional reform were supposed to be made through the Constitution Reform Council.
“The BNP's constitutional amendment process is a one-party affair. The people's verdict will not be reflected there,” he said.
Although the BNP could initially pass amendments with its two-thirds parliamentary majority, Akhtar argued that changes made by bypassing the referendum-backed process would lack public legitimacy.
He also dismissed the prospect of holding another referendum after the parliamentary amendment process, saying it would not resolve the dispute over the government's acceptance of the existing verdict.
“The BNP campaigned for a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum, but after the referendum passed, it refused to accept the verdict. Now it is talking about holding another referendum. This is merely a smokescreen or another form of deception,” he said.
Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the main opposition party in the parliament, has also accused the BNP of signing the charter without a genuine commitment to implementing its reforms.
Hamidur Rahman Azad, assistant secretary general of Jamaat, said remarks by Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed in parliament had exposed the BNP's motives behind signing the agreement.
The minister had said the BNP made compromises and signed the charter partly because it feared that disagreements over reforms could prevent the parliamentary election from being held.
“We were under pressure because we feared they might prevent the election from being held under the pretext of reform. That is why we compromised on everything and signed the July National Charter as well,” Salahuddin had said.
Azad interpreted the remarks as evidence that the BNP had treated the charter as a means of securing the election rather than as a commitment to the post-uprising reform agenda.
“The BNP's signature on the charter was an act of deception, not a sincere commitment. It was not an expression of the spirit of July,” he said.
He also questioned the government's decision to pursue constitutional changes through ordinary amendments, arguing that reforms adopted through the Constitution Reform Council would be more sustainable.
“Six constitutional amendments have previously been struck down by the courts. But if the reforms are adopted through the Constitution Reform Council, they will be sustainable,” he said.
Gazi Ataur Rahman, secretary general of Islami Andolan Bangladesh, expressed similar concerns, pointing out that Prime Minister Tarique Rahman had campaigned for a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum before the government questioned the legality and constitutionality of the implementation order.
“We believe they are doing all this to sidestep the July Charter,” he said.
Ataur Rahman said the BNP had begun undermining the unity forged through the charter from the first day of parliament by refusing to take the oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council.
The BNP's position has also drawn criticism from a politician who contested the parliamentary election as a candidate backed by a BNP-led alliance.
Saiful Haque, general secretary of the Revolutionary Workers Party of Bangladesh, said BNP lawmakers could have respected the referendum verdict by serving both as ordinary members of parliament and as members of the Constitution Reform Council.
He argued that refusing to do so had cost the ruling party an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to reform while giving political opponents, including Jamaat and the NCP, grounds to challenge its sincerity.
However, Haque welcomed the government's consultations with stakeholders on constitutional amendments, which began in mid-September. He expressed hope that the July Charter's reform proposals would be incorporated into the Constitution through the 18th Amendment during the upcoming winter session of parliament.
Mahmudur Rahman Manna, convener of Nagorik Oikya, said the dispute had become a paradox, with the government claiming it would implement the charter word for word while opposition parties accused it of betraying the public mandate.
“The implementation of the July Charter has become something of an impossible proposition. The government says it will implement it word for word, while the opposition says the government has betrayed the people,” he said.
He cited the commissions dealing with enforced disappearances and human rights, as well as decisions concerning the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), as areas where meaningful changes remained necessary.
“Reform does not mean addressing just a few specific points. The fundamental issue is that nothing has been done to remove fascist elements and establish democratic ones. Judicial independence has not been achieved either,” he said.
He added that the government had departed from the broader vision that guided the consensus-building process.
“In short, we have moved away from the spirit in which we drafted the July Charter as a whole,” he said.
---