THE chief adviser to the interim government, Muhammad Yunus, on many occasions has said that his government assumed the responsibility to run the affairs of the state on three mandates: reforms of the state, justice and accountability for the crimes committed by the Awami League government and general elections. The issues of reforms in the state governance are being identified and the justice and accountability for the Awami League鈥檚 crimes have made visible progress. This is heartening that the general elections are said to be held in the first fortnight of February and the Election Commission says that it would announce the date for the elections in the first week or so of December. Yunus has at such a time feared that the electoral transition could face both internal and external threats as forces may try to disrupt the elections, noting that all must overcome any challenges that may surface. Whilst Yunus should disclose the external threats and the quarters behind them, the internal threat that remains appears to be political. The Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and its allies seeking a referendum before the installation of the parliament or the constitution reforms council, or both, and the National Citizen Party seeking an absolute guarantee for the July charter implementation before general elections as conditions for their participation in the elections could make it a dangerous turn of events.
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, along with its allies, has, meanwhile, accused the national consensus commission of deceiving the people and parties by breaching the consensus, with notes of dissent, that they have arrived at. A few major political stakeholders along with the government appear to be shoving a consensus down the throat of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. The kinds of politics that various political parties pursue make them different, which is the essence of democracy. And, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party would certainly do its own politics, not that of others. The government and other political parties want a referendum on the constitutional reforms proposals laid out in the July charter before the national elections. This could very well be likened to putting the cart before the horse as in any democratic polity, such issues are weighed in the constituent assembly or the parliament that would act as the constituent assembly after discussions with political parties. They are then put to referendum for the people, the ultimate authority, to have their final say. In the case at hand, if the referendum is held before elections, the parliament will have the final say, leaving aside the people. And, if the parliament fails on this, the constitutional reforms would automatically come into force within 270 days of the formation of the parliament. This is ludicrous as no constitutional changes could take place automatically, without the due consent of the political parties and the people.
All this only deepens the political division of a new kind. The government must not hold the referendum before the general elections and major political parties must understand that the problem deepening would either delay or frustrate the general elections, creating further crisis for the people and the state.