When people lose faith in their leaders, can they rewrite the rules that govern them themselves? Bangladesh tested this on 12 February 2026, and 68.8% said yes. But what does this referendum really promise regarding the chance of change, revolution, and citizens' participation in constitution-making?
In 2024, mass student protests over job quotas escalated, as the authoritarian government, the Awami League, forces killed around 1400 people, leading to Sheikh Hasina fleeing to India. She was the Prime Minister from 2009 until 2024. However, the elections in 2014 and 2024 were criticised for opposition boycotts, arrests of opposition figures, and concerns about their lack of full freedom and fairness. Subsequently, Muhammad Yunus, a diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was asked to form an interim government, which established the Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) to review the constitution, identify past failures, and recommend reforms for a new democratic framework. This reform proposal was negotiated with the interim government and political parties, as a compromise, the so-called July Charter was established. On 12 February 2026, a national constitutional referendum to vote on this July Charter was held alongside the 13th parliamentary elections.
On 12 February 2026, voters decided on the July Charter, through a top-down referendum, which was not mandatory by the constitution but was called by state authorities. In a ballot format, citizens voted in a single yes-or-no choice on 84 constitutional proposals. The main issues were an expansion of fundamental rights, election procedures, and judicial independence. The referendum passed with 68.8% votes in favour and is now legally binding. By the time of the referendum, the Awami League had been removed from power and banned, so it did not participate in the reform process or the campaign around the July Charter. This outcome reflects a remarkable process driven ultimately by citizens and their demand for accountability and renewal.
Vision Diluted by Compromise
During the development from the CRC proposal into the referendum-approved July Charter, compromises for political consensus were inevitable. Here’s what changed and what stayed.
Both proposals agreed on judicial independence and inclusive identity, which highlights a civic identity and acknowledges the multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual, and multi-cultural identity of Bangladesh. Both adopted measures to enhance the judiciary's independence by establishing an independent judicial commission. Regarding language, both versions contain „Bangladeshi“ nationality and the recognition of all mother tongues.
Still, several changes from the CRC recommendation to the July Charter regarding fundamental rights, the bicameral parliament, and the caretaker government did happen. Regarding fundamental rights, the original CRC recommendation contained a unified version of an enforceable Bill of Rights, merging economic and social, and civil and political rights. These rights were supposed to be balanced through a proportionality test. In the July Charter, a broader approach was chosen. It focused on ensuring that the state takes active steps to expand, protect, and implement fundamental rights over time. Regarding the parliamentary structure, both supported moving from one chamber to two, where the new upper house should be selected based on the share of votes in the election for the lower house. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, however, dissented on the mode of composition and proposed another version depending on seats in the lower house rather than votes.
For the Caretaker Government, the CRC proposed that the Chief Adviser be jointly selected by a nonpartisan National Constitutional Council and the President, whereas the July Charter proposed a constitutional amendment for this, including a five-member Parliamentary Selection Committee.
The key takeaway of the process is that the CRC proposed bold, precise renewals, whereas the July Charter had to trade this precision to get adopted by all parties involved, which led to a watered-down, less enforceable outcome.
The public opinion on the referendum and the July Charter is divided. The interim government was actively campaigning and clarified the chief adviser’s support for the Yes - vote, as he said „silence would not represent neutrality, it would represent a failure of leadership“. However, during the formulation process, political parties, like BNP, gave notes of dissent, potentially to retain flexibility to revisit those points post-election. The National Citizens Party and four left-leaning parties even boycotted the Vote, due to an apparent lack of legal framework or binding guarantees that the commitments made in the charter would be implemented.
What Citizens Won
What can be learned from this referendum is that even under the most challenging circumstances, citizen engagement can lay the foundation for lasting democratic change. The path toward participation was marked by uncertainty and loss and it was very unpredictable whether progress would follow. Even though this process faced obstacles, due to negotiation processes along the way, not all the changes that were hoped for could be implemented. It can still be found that this referendum has created new opportunities for citizen influence. Meaningful change can not happen overnight, it is rather a long process that has to overcome several reform steps. The human rights organisation Odhikar sees this development as citizen-driven wins, and therefore steps from authoritarian control toward functional independence.
This shows that citizen participation in constitution-making is a powerful democratic tool and the establishment of global standards, based on the successes of the Bangladesh referendum, should guide future constitutional reforms.
