After 18 months of political uncertainty following the ouster of the Awami League government, Bangladeshis voted in an election for a new parliament and a referendum on reforms on February 12. The post-election phase was expected to bring clarity, especially with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party winning a strong mandate and the reforms receiving a 68 percent “yes” vote.

However, instead of proceeding along a well-defined reform path, the process has gotten more complicated.

It was in October 2025 that the major political parties signed the July National Charter, which provided an overall structure for constitutional and governance reforms. This charter was subsequently endorsed in the referendum, which gave the reforms legitimacy and urgency.

The problem before Bangladesh today is not the lack of a mandate for the reforms, but how that mandate is to be applied.

The first signs of disagreement appeared right after the election. At their swearing-in, the newly elected members of parliament (MPs) were to two oaths: as MPs and as members of a proposed Constitution Reform Council, mandated with executing the constitutional changes endorsed by the referendum within 180 working days.

Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) members and their allies, including National Citizen Party (NCP), took both oaths. But members of the ruling BNP, which won a majority in the parliament, refused to take the second oath.

There have been direct institutional impacts of this decision. The reform council that was to be the main process of transferring referendum results to amendments in the constitution has not been established. In its absence, the path to introducing reform proposals remains uncertain.

This disagreement shows a bigger difference in approach. BNP leaders argue that the reform council lacks constitutional status and that any major change must proceed through parliament following established legislative procedures. In contrast, opposition actors and participants in the earlier consensus process view the referendum as a binding political commitment that should guide immediate implementation.

The difference between public expectation and legal procedure is now at the center of the debate.

At the same time, the reform debate has widened beyond the question of the reform council itself. It now extends to the fate of ordinances issued during the interim period. A total of 133 ordinances were promulgated during the 18-month period of the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government, of which 97 were passed without change, and 13 were amended before approval. Another 7 were introduced as repeal bills. The remaining 16 ordinances were not brought before parliament, with the law minister stating that these require further review and consultation rather than being discarded.

This has made the situation more sensitive since some of the ordinances that await decisions are those that were part of the focus of the post-uprising reform agenda. These involve actions associated with the referendum system, forced disappearance, judicial reforms such as the appointment procedure and institutional autonomy, the National Human Rights Commission, and anti-corruption systems. Consequently, the present dispute is no longer confined to the constitutional structure. It is also about whether the protections that were put in place in the interim period will be rolled over, updated, or put aside in stages under the new parliament.

At the center of this debate is also a shift in how the ruling party is approaching reform. Before the election, BNP leaders publicly supported the referendum and campaigned for a “yes” vote. After the election, however, BNP leaders argued that while the July Charter remains a political commitment, its implementation must follow constitutional procedures through parliament. This distinction between political endorsement and legal process has become a key point of tension. For the opposition, it raises concerns about delay and the possible weakening of the reform momentum.

Meanwhile, opposition MPs say several of these ordinances were mishandled. Some lapsed, while others were revised or repealed. They argue that discussion was limited and last-minute changes were made without proper consultation.

This delegitimizes previous agreements made in the transitional period and undermines the credibility of the reform process, they argue.

Meanwhile the government is insisting that the reforms must be conducted in line with the parliamentary processes and legal review. However, in the opinion of the opposition, the tone in which these processes are occurring raises the questions of commitment, transparency, and continuity.

The result is a widening trust deficit within the political landscape.

This mistrust is no longer confined to parliamentary debate. It is increasingly visible in political behavior both inside and outside the legislature. The opposition has staged walkouts for the fourth time during the opening session of parliament in the first two months, citing procedural irregularities and the failure to reflect the referendum mandate.

The issue has also moved onto the streets.

On April 4, the 11-party alliance led by JI held a major rally in Dhaka, demanding immediate implementation of the referendum verdict and the July Charter. Participants gathered, carrying placards and chanting slogans in support of constitutional reform.

The rally was the start of the mobilization plan in post-election Bangladesh. Opposition leaders are describing the delay in the implementation of reforms as a political crisis as the administration is not honoring the referendum mandate. They have also threatened more agitations if the government doesn’t heed their demands.

Another layer of complexity arises from the legal nature of the reform process itself. Although the July Charter is the result of an overall political agreement, it does not necessarily imply constitutional change. Any amendment should eventually go through the legislative process.

This creates a gap between expectation and execution. On one hand, there is a majority public mandate for reform. On the other hand, there are procedural requirements that can delay or reshape how that mandate is implemented.

The uncertainty surrounding the referendum ordinance further illustrates this challenge. Questions have been raised about whether the validity of the referendum outcome could be affected if the ordinance underpinning it is not approved within the required timeframe.

Such ambiguities are complicating an already complex process.

The reform agenda still exists, backed by both political commitments and public endorsement. However, its implementation is becoming increasingly complex. Disagreements over institutional mechanisms, the fate of key ordinances, delays in legislative processes, and a growing lack of trust among political leaders from both ruling and opposition are all contributing to this complexity.