By Prof Dr Momtazur Rahman
Bangladesh’s government and the opposition remain firmly at odds over how to implement constitutional changes promised after the July Movement, fueling concerns of a prolonged political stalemate. The dispute centers on whether the country’s Constitution should undergo comprehensive structural reform or be amended under the existing constitutional framework. The opposition alliance insists that the constitutional provisions of the July National Charter 2025 must be implemented in full through a Constitutional Reform Council, while the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) argues that constitutional amendments are sufficient to achieve the required reforms.
The issue has already triggered heated debates during the first session of the 13th National Parliament. Despite lengthy discussions, neither side has softened its position.
According to opposition leaders, the July National Charter, signed on October 17, 2025, following extensive political dialogue during the interim administration led by Dr. Muhammad Yunus contains 84 reform proposals, 48 of which relate directly to the Constitution. They argue that these proposals received public endorsement through a nationwide referendum held alongside the parliamentary elections on February 12 this year.
The opposition contends that around 70 percent of voters approved the constitutional reform proposals and maintains that Parliament has a democratic obligation to implement the referendum results without alteration. It also points to previous national referendums in Bangladesh, arguing that such votes have been recognized in practice despite constitutional debates over their status.
The Jamaat-e-Islami-led opposition alliance has announced nationwide political programmes demanding the full implementation of the July Charter through the Constitutional Reform Council.
The ruling BNP rejects the need for a separate constitutional reform mechanism, maintaining that meaningful reform can be achieved through amendments within the existing Constitution.
Senior BNP leaders say the party remains committed to implementing the July Charter but believes constitutional amendment is the appropriate legal and parliamentary route.
BNP Standing Committee member Selima Rahman said the government remains committed to fulfilling every commitment of the July Charter, accusing the opposition of creating unnecessary political uncertainty.
Chief Whip and BNP Vice Chairman Nurul Islam Moni said Bangladesh has three possible options: drafting an entirely new Constitution, suspending the existing Constitution and introducing a new system, or reforming the Constitution through amendments. According to him, the government has chosen the third option, which preserves constitutional continuity while introducing necessary reforms.
The disagreement became more visible after members of the second-largest parliamentary bloc—the Jamaat-e-Islami and its ally, the National Citizen Party (NCP) took two separate oaths following the February elections: one as Members of Parliament and another as members of the Constitutional Reform Council. BNP lawmakers took only the parliamentary oath, declining to join the Reform Council.
The issue was debated again in Parliament on March 31 when the government proposed forming a special parliamentary committee to examine constitutional amendments. The opposition rejected the proposal. On April 29, the Law Minister announced plans to establish a 17-member Constitutional Amendment Committee, but opposition leaders reiterated that they had fundamental differences over the committee’s mandate.
Political analysts say the current impasse has created uncertainty over how the recommendations of the Constitutional Reform Commission and the referendum results will ultimately be implemented.
Professor Ali Riaz, Vice-Chairman of the National Consensus Commission, has argued that preserving the existing constitutional and legal framework alone cannot fully reflect the spirit of the July Movement. He believes structural constitutional changes are necessary to achieve the democratic transformation sought by the movement.
Professor Kazi Mohammad Mahbubur Rahman, Director of the Centre for Advanced Social Science Research at the University of Dhaka’s Department of Political Science, said the present conflict was foreseeable. He attributed the crisis to inadequate political consensus, insufficient political scrutiny of the reform process, and questions surrounding the neutrality and ambition of the Consensus Commission.
Legal experts have also weighed in. Supreme Court lawyer and BNP lawmaker Barrister Mahbub Uddin Khokon said he sees no fundamental distinction between constitutional reform and constitutional amendment, arguing that meaningful reform inevitably requires amendments. He described the dispute as increasingly political rather than legal.
However, Professor Mia Golam Parwar, Secretary General of Jamaat-e-Islami, disagreed, insisting that amendment and reform are fundamentally different concepts. According to him, amendments involve limited textual changes, whereas reform requires structural transformation of the Constitution—changes that he says were endorsed by the electorate through the referendum.
Observers warn that unless the government and opposition reach a negotiated compromise, the constitutional dispute could deepen Bangladesh’s political polarization and delay implementation of key democratic reforms promised after the July Movement.
With the government committed to constitutional amendments and the opposition demanding comprehensive constitutional reform through the July Charter framework, the country faces growing uncertainty over the future of its constitutional and political reform agenda.
The writer is a professor of English and Registrar at IUBAT-International University of Business Agriculture and Technology.
