THE road map to implement 48 constitution-related reform proposals contained in the July national charter 2025, which the national consensus commission submitted to the interim government on October 28, appears to have stripped the very essence of ‘consensus’ as it disregards all notes of dissent expressed by different political parties and imposes the implementation of the charter in its entirety on the next government. The road map proposes the issuance of the July National Charter (Reform of Constitution) Implementation Order 2025 by the interim government, a referendum under this order before or alongside the next general elections, the next parliament’s second role as a constitution reforms council and the implementation of the constitutional reforms in 270 days of the formation of the next parliament. It also recommends a maximum of 45 more days for the next parliament to form a 100-member upper house. The consensus commission has suggested two options for implementing the constitution-related reforms proposals, by either presenting them as a bill by the interim government before the referendum, to be subsequently approved by the council, or allowing the council to approve the proposals in 270 days of its formation. It also says that if the council fails to do so within the period, the reforms would automatically come into effect.
Such a road map, which has already generated animosity among different political parties and has surprised legal and constitution experts, is likely to lead to further crises and render whatever achievements that the interim government and the consensus commission have so far achieved ineffective. The road map has, in fact, given rise to more questions than it has answered. To begin with, an automatic enactment of the reform proposals after 270 days renders any preceding procedures redundant formalities. Moreover, the referendum, whether before or along the next elections, on the reforms proposals of the July charter, including the 48 that need amendments to the constitution, is problematic on several counts. First, no law, even when interpreted most liberally, supports such a referendum unless it is adopted earlier by the parliament. Second, how can one expect and ensure that ordinary citizens, to be given a one-line question requiring a yes-or-no answer, to make an informed decision and then approve or disapprove such a large and complex political and legal document. This, in effect, denies the people any space for dissent. As such, the road map coerces people and political parties to give up their political agency and subscribe to a document that should by definition have been grounded in consensus.
The government and the national consensus commission should, therefore, reconsider the road map, in general, and the constitution-related reform proposals, in particular, that in its current state denies the people and the political parties their political agency.
