British human rights activist and investigative journalist David Bergman provided his initial thoughts on the July Charter, with one key standout: it attempts to place itself as ‘supreme’, superseding even the 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh.
In a Facebook post on Sunday, he said the document attempts to do this by describing it as “a clear and supreme expression of the people’s will through long discussions.”
Bergman blasts both the description and attempt as ridiculous and wrong, writing, “The idea that anything agreed by a group of current highly undemocratic political parties, many of them very small, who have not been put to the test in a free and fair election since 2008, or indeed have never taken part in any national election, represents ‘a clear and supreme expression of the people’s will’, is simply laughable.”
Bergman’s critique highlighted four other key areas within the July Charter: the reduction of the prime minister’s power, how it deals with the issue of ‘secularism’, the introduction of a second chamber in parliament, and the use of ‘unverifiable’ facts.
As a way of summary, Bergman states: “At first glance most of the proposals appear to be common-sense progressive reforms seeking more independent state institutions and a reduction of power in the hands of the prime minister. It includes the kind of reforms that I think most people, interested in constitutional reform, would agree with.”
This is further complemented by the introduction of upper and lower houses in parliament, with the introduction of a second chamber “intended to act as a check on the power of the prime minister”.
Due to a lack of clarity in language it seems that it is unclear how exactly this will be implemented to ensure that there exists a ‘check’ on the prime minister.
This linguistic confusion bleeds into how it deals with the idea of secularism, with Bergman saying, that the term is currently under attack from “the Islamic right wing”.
However, based on the charter’s language on the provision, he goes on to add, “If my reading is correct, this allows the argument about the retention of the word ‘secularism’ to be decided in the future, under an elected government. This would be a good thing.”
Bergman also blasts the July Charter for undermining itself by utilising two unsubstantiated ‘facts’ – the number of people killed during the uprising (more than 1400) and Awami League’s involvement in the 2009 Pilkhana massacre of 2009.
“One of the positive things about the recent July Declaration was that it did not exaggerate the numbers of those who died, saying that ‘nearly one thousand’ were killed,” Bergman says, questioning why the charter would deviate from the declaration.
With regards to the Pilkhana massacre, Bergman says, since “there is no substantive evidence to support … [the] contention that the Awami League government conspired decapitate the army though the killing of the army officers, how can the Charter include the BDR massacre in its list of state atrocities?”
With there being ample confusion and ignorance amongst the masses (and even amongst specialists such as journalists) regarding the purpose, contents, and differences between the July Charter and the July Declaration, Bergman’s first impressions of the draft charter shine a spotlight not only on the need increase awareness among the public regarding the reforms being undertaken by the interim government, it also showcases the lengths to which these reforms are being undertaken and implemented.
