Let July Charter not create political division

In the history of our past mass movements or uprisings, many informed quarters believe that it is a national responsibility to eternally commemorate the great awakening, sacrifice, and success of the students and people in 2024. Because it was not a simple movement for the overthrow of an undemocratic government. It was not aimed at removing a random fascist regime to pave the way for another autocracy or fascism through a so-called election. No established political party or politically conscious citizen of the country can deny this truth. Then, on what grounds are we deliberately ignoring the declaration of the July Charter or the determination of the struggling student masses to build a new Bangladesh? There may indeed be weaknesses in the political decisions, strategies, or programmes taken by the struggling students following the July-August mass uprising. This might reflect not only organisational shortcomings but also flawed decisions based on experience and time. However, ultimately it must be said without hesitation that most of the leaders of the student movement were selfless and above controversy when it came to the overall welfare and liberation of the country.

In this case, despite the many failures of the present interim government, we must remain uncompromising. Otherwise, not only they but all the movements and sacrifices of July-August will be rendered meaningless. On the first anniversary of the July mass uprising, a series of grand programmes has been announced by the interim government throughout July and August; yet over the past year, accounting for the achievements of the mass uprising has become increasingly difficult; but why has this happened? This was not supposed to be the case. This question keeps recurring in the public mind. Who has benefited and how much from the outcomes of July-August? It appears to have become an extreme competition.

The mass uprising itself is a major achievement. The fall of a vile fascist ruling group like the Awami League is among the greatest accomplishments in the lives of this country’s people. The enormous public awareness and creative popular power we witnessed before and after the uprising, the clear political aspiration and strong resolve to build the nation seen among the youth—these were astonishing achievements. But in terms of the post-July government, political culture, cultural politics, and societal structure, how far have these unbelievable events been structurally translated? In view of the breakdowns as well as the creations, the shortcomings are not insignificant.

Following the massive student-led movement in August last year and the consequent flight of Sheikh Hasina to India, the nature of the newly formed government has been the subject of much debate—what kind it would be or what would have been better. This interim government was formed by maintaining constitutional continuity; at the same time, some of the student leaders of the mass uprising have joined the government. As a result, there remain questions regarding the exact nature, tenure, and mandate of this government. Although some time ago, the press secretary of the chief adviser stated on a talk show that this government has the mandate to do everything, in practice this claim has not been substantiated by strong factual grounds. Since last December, the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the ‘July Charter’ has been rooted in the debate over the nature of the interim government. Although declared as an interim government, many inside and outside it wish to transform it into a ‘revolutionary government,’ despite no clear framework being presented to the public.

The old-style political parties, who are also key partners of the uprising and the government, mostly hold negative or hesitant attitudes toward this revolutionary aspiration. The tension between the revolutionary aspiration of July, the nature of the interim government, and the positions of the political forces has eventually created a kind of ambiguity in the national aspiration. Its ornamental name: reform. Even before the mass uprising, the concept of ‘state reform’ had gained popularity due to several political parties and intellectual platforms. The July mass uprising created the practical ground for this, and how and to what extent these reforms will take place has become the key issue. Several reform commissions have been formed in the country and they have produced major reports; but how much of these reform proposals can or will be implemented remains in question and uncertainty. Furthermore, by placing reform and elections in opposition to each other, the reform agenda has been made even more difficult. However, there is no doubt that the defeated fascist forces and their domestic and foreign agents have tried—under various masks—to portray these tendencies in a more grotesque form than they actually are.

The political divisions and polarisation among the July forces have also made the situation quite murky. One can cautiously acknowledge that these developments are indeed happening. It was the duty of the revolutionary students and the government to stand against the counter-revolutionary, reckless, and fascist activities re-emerging in society, where they have largely failed. This has led to a certain level of negativity—however large or small—regarding the leadership of the government and the uprising. One of the primary public demands and urgent tasks after 5 August was to initiate justice and formal reconciliation.

But it appears that none of the existing political forces have sincerely brought this demand to the forefront. Electoral calculations, tensions between political parties and the government, the political economy of litigation trade, opportunistic activities of those fishing in troubled waters, various initiatives of impunity rehabilitation, and the unclear and stagnant conduct of the government have collectively dissipated much of the momentum for justice. After overthrowing a fascist government, the government has failed to implement the wide-ranging, multifaceted, and strategic institutional efforts necessary to ensure justice, protect national unity, and secure socio-political reconciliation. A kind of curiosity, aspiration, and concern has developed among various sections of the public regarding the new political party formed by the student leaders of the uprising. But this aspiration is not absolute. By entering electoral politics, the party has had to absorb many elements of the existing political structure, which has brought various controversies upon them. Again, there are various speculations about what course this party will take and what their envisioned Bangladesh will look like. Despite all this, it appears that the reformists still want to place their trust in this party.

The accounting of gains and losses will continue; but the incredible uprising of July-August has brought forth immense potential for transformation in our national life, which is extraordinary. How much we can utilise this remains uncertain. Some have questioned what changes the July-August mass uprising has brought to our lives. If there have been no changes, how was fascism toppled or overthrown in this country? Why such a massive mass movement and so much sacrifice by ordinary people?

Chief Adviser of the interim government Dr Muhammad Yunus has said, “To transform past undemocratic, autocratic, or fascist misrule, the reforms we have pledged, including state repair, must be included in our proposed July Charter.” Everyone involved in the July-August mass uprising, regardless of party affiliation, must implement the proposed declarations. But what are these proposed declarations? Many parties involved in the July-August mass uprising still do not know. No formal discussions have yet been held with the leaders of the BNP or other patriotic parties in this regard. Who will be the signatories to the proposed charter? So far, there is no information on this either. We want a collective pledge from all to establish democracy, human rights, and the rule of law and to ensure economic emancipation of the people by resisting domestic and foreign domination. Many in the political circles, including the current interim government head Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus, have already offered various explanations and analyses of the post-uprising administrative and political situation in Bangladesh.

Many of their views reflect the various failures of the past year. A key reason identified by many is the lack of coordination in thinking and vision between the leaders of the anti-discrimination student movement and those of other political parties. Former leaders of the anti-discrimination student movement have repeatedly complained that the absence of a timely declaration of a ‘July Charter’ by the post-uprising interim government has led to much confusion in political circles and a lack of direction for the future. As a result, the majority of leaders of various political parties have returned under the banners of their respective parties.

But they have forgotten the national context of that great mass uprising—the need for political unity or coordination of political programmes. As a result, the fallen Awami regime’s collaborators have found the scope and opportunity to re-emerge. In this situation, Dr Muhammad Yunus has expressed his frustration, saying, “Our dream of building a new Bangladesh is on the verge of failure. Representatives of the former fascist government are still everywhere. We have not been able to remove them. We have not been able to change their nature and character.” If immediate and appropriate actions are not taken across all areas, and the desired reforms or changes are not achieved, no elected government in future power politics will be able to remain stable. As a result, the transformation, development, or prosperity hoped for in all sectors of national life after the uprising is bound to be frustrated.

Rayhan Ahmed Tapader: Researcher and columnist