The calculations surrounding the referendum, the implementation of the July Charter, and the constitutional reform council have become exceedingly complex. The July Charter was approved through a referendum. In a democracy, the people are sovereign. On that basis, there is no scope to disregard a charter endorsed by popular vote. At the same time, BNP has formally recorded notes of dissent on certain provisions of the July Charter. It presented itself to the electorate with that stated position, and secured a resounding mandate, including a two-thirds majority in parliament. The logical question, therefore, is how the July Charter is to be implemented in this context.

Since BNP signed the July Charter, it bears a moral obligation to implement its provisions, even excluding those points on which it registered dissent. Should the party, by virtue of its two-thirds majority in parliament or within a constitutional reform council, seek to sidestep the charter altogether, that would amount to a breach of commitment and run counter to the spirit of the uprising. The electorate would be unlikely to view favourably the use of overwhelming political strength in that manner.

Conversely, if the BNP refrains from implementing those specific provisions to which it formally objected, it cannot easily be faulted on ethical grounds. Whether one agrees or not, those objections constituted its declared political stance, and it was on that basis that the party won the election. The complication, however, lies in the fact that the referendum on the July Charter did not accommodate any notion of dissenting notes. Notably, the BNP did not reject the referendum; officially, it supported a ‘Yes’ vote.