The referendum was held mainly to approve two issues. Clause 3 of the Implementation Order states that, “for the exercise of the sovereign power of the people, this order and the constitutional reform section of the July National Charter shall be presented in a referendum.”
Clause 4 specified the question to be placed on the ballot: “Do you approve the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order 2025 and the following proposals regarding constitutional reforms contained in the July National Charter?” (Yes/No):
(a) The caretaker government, Election Commission, and other constitutional bodies will be formed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the July Charter.
(b) The next parliament will be bicameral, with a 100-member upper house formed proportionally based on votes received by parties, and constitutional amendments will require approval by a majority of the upper house.
(c) The parties winning the next parliamentary election will be obliged to implement 30 reform proposals agreed upon in the July Charter, including increasing women’s representation, electing a deputy speaker and some committee chairs from the opposition, limiting the Prime Minister’s tenure, enhancing presidential powers, ensuring fundamental rights, judicial independence, and strengthening local government.
(d) Other reforms mentioned in the July Charter will be implemented according to party commitments.
According to the referendum question, notes of dissent by BNP on core issues—such as the caretaker system, appointments to constitutional bodies, structure and powers of the upper house, and amendment procedures—had no significance. These were passed as originally proposed in the July Charter, without including dissenting notes.
As a result, the referendum endorsed both the Implementation Order and the core reform proposals without dissent.
Before the vote, a source in the interim government indicated concern that BNP might secretly campaign for a “No” vote, which could result in rejection. Efforts were made to ensure BNP supported a “Yes” vote.
On 30 January, at an election rally in Rangpur, BNP Chairman Tarique Rahman urged voters to support both the party’s electoral symbol and vote “Yes” in the referendum in honour of the July Charter.
Referring to the interim government’s reform initiatives, Tarique Rahman said that day, “We have presented our reform proposals there. Broadly speaking, the proposals they have put forward are more or less the same as those we had presented to the public much earlier. There may be some differences with us on certain points. But if there are differences, we have not hidden them. We have openly told the people which ones we agree with and which ones we disagree with.”
However, after winning the election, BNP took a position against implementing the July National Charter Order and the results of the referendum. Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said on multiple days in the 13th parliament that since the first parliament began in 1973, the President no longer has the authority to issue such orders, and the July Charter Implementation Order is illegal.
The referendum ordinance issued under that order was also not approved in parliament. BNP stated that the referendum was conducted in a flawed manner, arguing that although there were four questions, there was only one option for answering.
However, BNP says it will fully implement the July Charter as it was signed, including the notes of dissent. Implementing the charter with dissent means that the core constitutional reform proposals will not be adopted. Instead, constitutional amendments will be made in line with BNP’s 31-point agenda and election manifesto.
Implementing the July Charter with dissent effectively means that the fundamental constitutional reform proposals will not be introduced. In that case, how far the goals outlined by the reform commission—such as preventing the establishment of constitutional authoritarianism, resisting any form of fascist rule, and ensuring decentralisation and adequate empowerment of state institutions—will be achieved remains an important question.
It also raises another question: how far such reforms are possible through changes in laws and regulations alone, without a transformation in political culture.
