Yes, governments can support a referendum.
Bangladesh is facing a referendum once again in 2026. After 15 years of democracy being silent, people can finally go out and vote again for their preferred candidate in the elections. There is another vote the populace of this country will be voting on: a referendum to decide whether certain rulings outlined in the July Declaration will be legally bound for the next government or not.
Referendums in Bangladesh are nothing new. The late President Ziaur Rahman held one in 1977 to gauge whether the people wanted him or not as their ruler, but the results of that referendum were marred in controversy. Ershad also held a similar one in 1985 – another referendum whose results have been discredited over time – and in 1991 a referendum was held to ask people whether or not they agreed with Bangladesh switching from a presidential system to a Westminster-style government, where the ‘Yes’ side won, starting the era of parliamentary-style politics in Bangladesh, which continues to this day.
Some social media, political observers and analysts have recently criticised the government regarding their promotion of the ‘Yes’ vote in the upcoming referendum, citing that the government should be unbiased in such a scenario and not influence people’s minds. But do governments around the world actually remain neutral when it comes to a referendum vote?
In 1988, when Chile had its presidential referendum, the Pinochet regime actively campaigned for the ‘Yes’ vote, and they lost the referendum. In 1990, the South African ruling party at the time actively campaigned for the ‘Yes’ vote to end apartheid, and it won. In both these cases, the opposition were allowed to run their campaigns while the government preached the option they wanted to win the most. In the modern era, in the UK itself, the ruling Conservative party under David Cameron actively campaigned for Scotland to remain in the UK during the Scottish Independence Referendum and for the UK to remain in the EU in the Brexit Referendum.
So, we can see that governments around the world have campaigned for the option they want to win in a referendum. In Bangladesh also there is a precedent when the late President Ziaur Rahman actively campaigned for the ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum he organised.
Critics say the government maintains an unreal level of power and leverage to influence minds so that no opposition can counter them, but historical examples show how wrong it can be because if the government is hated, no amount of campaigning can change people’s minds – they will vote against the option the ruling party wants. Jaamat and NCP are actively campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum; BNP’s Mirza Fakhrul, in a recent statement, also supported the ‘Yes’ vote. There remain some politicians like Faruque Sadiq and some others on both the left and right who are campaigning for the No vote as well, sometimes spreading misinformation to bolster their campaigns as well.
Another criticism that is put forward is that the average voter does not know what policy is being put out, and so at the end of the day, people, while they fought in the July Uprising, did not exactly campaign for a bicameral parliament, more recognition of minorities, etc. So, the government should not campaign for such a thing using July as a pretext. But this ends up ignoring a stark reality – people of Bangladesh wanted the systems to change, the same system that enabled someone like Hasina to accumulate power in the way she did.
At the end of the day, the interim government was established on a mandate to make reforms in the country, and on February 12, voters of Bangladesh would decide whether they would accept these reforms or not and accept the demands laid out in the July Declaration.
The ‘Yes’ vote would ensure the upper house of this country is elected in a proportional way according to what percentage of the vote a particular party gets. It also ensures the recognition of other languages besides Bengali in Bangladesh, putting a nail to Bengali nationalism, as ‘Yes’ supporters put it. Increased women’s representation over time in the parliament, putting the limit of the tenure of any person to become prime minister at a maximum of 10 years, and divisions of power between the president and prime minister are also things that will become the law of this land if the ”Yes” vote wins.
The impact of this vote is important when BNP, while not taking a hard stance on the referendum, have disagreed with some of the reforms proposed in the July Declaration, with them wanting the upper house to be directly elected by the lower house and the Prime Minister only being limited to two consecutive terms instead of a maximum of 10 years.
If ‘Yes’ wins, they are bound by the law to agree with the proposals presented in the referendum. If ‘No’ wins, they are free only to enact parts of the July Declaration they themselves agreed with.
The interim government’s tenure is justified in a scenario of a ‘Yes’ victory. If ‘No’ wins, the entire duration of the interim government would be termed an absolute failure. All the reform commissions and constant wants of staying on to enact proper reforms – all will be deemed a failure, and it puts the theme of the 2024 uprising into question as well. If true reforms were not enacted, what was the purpose of the uprising in the first place if we keep the previous systems intact, leading us down to the same mess that created someone like Hasina in the first place – the ability to change the rules as you please once you gain proper support?
On February 12, people of Bangladesh will decide what path they want to take. It is the people of Bangladesh that will decide whether they want the reforms outlined in the referendum in the first place, and without the support of the people of Bangladesh, none of the reforms outlined in the referendum will see the light of day.
Azwad Abdullah Ayan is an undergraduate student at BRAC University.
