By Shakila Zerin In Bangladesh’s political history, the July uprising of 2024 marks an unprecedented chapter. The interim government has taken responsibility for running the country, carrying the aspirations of the July uprising and aiming for democratic transformation. A referendum is one initiative toward that democratisation. The national election will be held on February 12 next. According to the interim government’s decision, the referendum will also be held on the same day. The referendum will be based on the proposed โJuly National Charterโ as the blueprint for state reform. The government has already started campaign activities regarding the upcoming 13th national parliamentary election and the referendum.
Campaigns are being conducted from the Chief Adviser’s Office, the Ministry of Information, and the Ministry of Cultural Affairs. Government logos are being used in official communications, banners are being hung in government, semi-government, and autonomous institutions, and banners, billboards, leaflets, and festoons have been displayed across the country. In addition, meetings have been held with various ministries, the Islamic Foundation, and NGOs. Campaigns are also ongoing on social media.
The government’s special initiative, the โVote CarโSuper Caravan,โ began its journey on the country’s roads on December 22. This convoy of 10 well-decorated large trucks, giant digital screens, and rich campaign materials is touring various districts and upazilas of the country. Arrangements have been made for video screenings on large screens, documentaries, and discussions. Its main objective is to make the public aware of the upcoming 13th national parliamentary election and the referendum to be held based on the โJuly National Charter.โ These various and innovative initiatives to inform and raise awareness among the people are undoubtedly praiseworthy. However, what is calling this praiseworthy initiative into question is the interim government’s campaign in favour of voting โYes.โ Can a neutral interim government campaign in favour of one side?
Although Ali Riaz, special assistant to the chief adviser of the interim government and chief coordinator of referendum-related campaign activities, said in a statement to the media that experts have opined there is no legal barrier for the interim government to conduct positive promotional activities in favour of reform in the referendum, the question is whether it is only a legal barrier. The absence of a legal barrier does not mean it is morally or democratically correct.
Awami League vows to return to power in Delhi press conference
International warnings grow against elections without Awami League
Jamaat-Shibir is committing silent killing of Awami League members in prisons
A referendum or plebiscite is a powerful tool of direct democracy, where citizens directly provide their verdict on any fundamental matter of the state or constitution. A referendum is held when the issue is so important that not only politicians but the opinion of the entire nation is needed. For example, when changing the constitution or drafting a new constitution, when a region or province wants to become a separate state, in the case of approving international treaties, when changing the state structure or system of governance, or making or repealing a law. That is, referendums are held on such decisions that determine the future of the entire nation. In this process, questions are prepared based on some proposals, and โYesโ or โNoโ opinions are taken from voters. If the โYesโ vote wins, the proposed decision is accepted; if the โNoโ vote wins, it is rejected. But when an interim government, whose primary responsibility is to create a fair and neutral election environment, campaigns for a specific side, the principle of neutrality is violated there. This is not only political dishonesty but also amounts to creating a kind of pressure on public opinion.
In theory, in a democratic state, the government’s job is to open all aspects of information before the people. It is the government’s responsibility to inform about both the benefits and drawbacks of a proposal. But when the government campaigns only in favour of the “Yes” vote, it is considered an abuse of state power. Yet, in a leaflet titled โReferendum 2026, Parliamentary Election: The Key to the Country Is in Your Handsโ published by the Chief Adviser’s Office, 11 points are highlighted regarding what benefits will come from voting โYesโ in the referendum. Do you want such a Bangladesh where the deputy speaker and chairpersons of important parliamentary committees will be elected from the opposition party, an upper house will be formed in Parliament to establish a balance of power, and there will be a balance between the powers of the president and the prime minister, as mentioned? But what problems could arise if the Deputy Speaker is from the opposition? What is an upper house? How does it work? Nothing is mentioned about the scope of the upper house’s powers. And at the end, it is written that if you vote โYes,โ you will get all the above. If you vote โNo,โ you will receive nothing. Such language could come from an individual or a political party, but can a government’s statement be so unprofessional and informal?
Islamist parties split over seat sharing ahead of February 12 election
Yunus approves controversial indemnity law for safeguard of July rioters
4 UK MPs urge inclusive, credible elections amid concerns over civil liberties
Since an interim government is not elected by the direct vote of the people, the responsibility entrusted to it is only to carry out state reform based on public opinion and ensure a fair election. But when they themselves ask for votes from the people to implement their own agenda, they lose their โneutralโ image and turn into a political party. Although there is no direct legal prohibition on this, morally, it is a major deviation. A citizen expects that the government will help him make a decision by providing correct information, not by imposing a decision. Campaigning in favour of the โYesโ vote means imposing the government’s own will on the people. It is morally unacceptable for this reason: it carries an implicit threat of identifying supporters of the โNoโ vote as anti-state or anti-development.
Yet the fundamental basis of democracy is equal opportunity for competition. When the state itself spends all its power and money (which is the people’s tax money) to campaign for a specific side (โYesโ vote), no space remains for the opposing view (โNoโ vote). It is like making one side of the playing field the referee. Legally, there may be no barrier, but it is contrary to justice.
Government campaigns are often tried to be passed off as โpublic educationโ or public awareness. But in reality, it often turns into “propaganda” or misinformation. The current interim government’s campaign in favour of the โYesโ vote is similar. Through information censorship, the government is only highlighting the positive aspects of their proposal and hiding the possible negative aspects. When the state keeps telling only the benefits of the โYesโ vote day and night, ordinary people get no opportunity to think of any alternative. In the language of social science, this is called โmanufacturing consentโ or forced consent production.
But what does voting mean? Voting does not mean merely stamping a ballot paper. Voting is the reflection of a citizen’s free and independent conscience. For a meaningful vote, the citizen must be adequately informed and free from pressure. When the government conducts biased campaigning, the vote no longer reflects public opinion; it becomes propaganda.
Genuine public opinion is that which forms without any kind of influence or inducement. When the government itself becomes one side, the transparency and acceptability of that vote are called into question.
Governments often propagate their reform plans as the people’s demand.โ But it must be remembered that what a specific group or some policymakers inside the government consider good for the country may not be acceptable to everyone. Government campaigning in favour of the โYesโ vote means that the government or a specific group has already decided what should happen. Then they are creating pressure on the people to legitimise that decision. In this, the diverse opinions of the people are not given importance. Instead, a โmonolithicโ or one-directional thought process is imposed. In a democracy, the importance of public consent exists only when there is equal opportunity to say โNo.โ If the government only campaigns for โYes,โ the opportunity to say โNoโ is practically nullified. As a result, the true purpose of the referendumโknowing the real will of the peopleโis undermined, and it turns into a mere โyes-affirmingโ formality.
A referendum is the expression of the people’s sovereignty. Here, the government’s role should be that of an information provider, not a propagandist. The interim government should ensure equal opportunities for both the โYesโ and โNoโ sides so that citizens can make their own decisions after hearing the debate. When the government engages in one-sided campaigning, instead of strengthening democracy, it sows the seeds of authoritarianism. For the sake of a healthy democracy, it is desirable for the state and government to stay away from biased campaigning and focus only on making the process fair.
Shakila Zerin: Journalist and human rights activist
English 
Bengali