[🇧🇩] Will the political parties and voters support referendum on July Charter?

[Saif]

Date of Event: Nov 30, 2025

Source : https://en.prothomalo.com/opinion/op-ed/sj2sqoltma

State and politics: BNP has no interest in referendum, will the voters have any?

Among the steps the government has taken to implement the July Charter, the referendum is one; though it remains subject to political debate. Several parties, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), had demanded that the referendum be held after the general election. Jamaat-e-Islami, on the other hand, insisted that it must take place before the parliamentary polls. As a compromise between these two positions, the government has decided to hold the referendum on the same day as the general election and, last week, issued the Referendum Ordinance, 2025.

According to the ordinance, a single question will be placed before the electorate: “Do you consent to the July National Charter (constitutional reform) Implementation Order 2025 and to the following proposals relating to the constitutional reforms recorded in the July National Charter?” (Yes/No):

(a) The election-time caretaker government, the election commission and other constitutional bodies shall be constituted in accordance with the procedures set out in the July Charter;

(b) The next Jatiya Sangsad shall be bicameral, with an upper house of 100 members constituted in proportion to the votes received by political parties in the national election; and any constitutional amendment shall require approval by a majority of the upper house.

(c) The political parties victorious in the upcoming parliamentary election shall be obliged to implement the 30 issues listed in the schedule of the July National Charter on which consensus was reached, including increased representation of women in parliament, a deputy speaker from the opposition, election of parliamentary committee chairs, fundamental rights, judicial independence, local government, the prime minister’s tenure, and the president’s powers.

The BNP argues that the July Charter had recorded various objections or notes of dissent from political parties; yet the constitutional order issued to implement the Charter makes no mention of those objections. Therefore, they say, they will not shoulder the responsibility, which the interim government must take.

(d) Other reforms outlined in the July National Charter shall be implemented in line with the commitments of political parties.

There are four questions, but only one answer. If you support the measure, you must support all four; if you oppose it, you must reject all four. Some internal contradictions lie within these clauses. The final paragraph stipulates that outstanding reforms shall be implemented according to the commitments of political parties. But if the commitments of the victorious party contradict the first three clauses, the implementation of the July Charter could become difficult.

The BNP argues that the July Charter had recorded various objections or notes of dissent from political parties; yet the constitutional order issued to implement the Charter makes no mention of those objections. Therefore, they say, they will not shoulder the responsibility, which the interim government must take.

It is now evident that, despite the signing of the July Charter, significant differences remain among political parties concerning the constitutional order and the referendum. Leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami and their allied parties are campaigning vigorously to ensure the referendum’s success. They believe that the future of democracy depends on its outcome. The BNP and its allies do not share this conviction.

The headline of the Daily Star on 27 November read, “Polls strategy: Referendum not on BNP’s mind”. In essence, the report stated that the referendum, scheduled for the same day as the parliamentary election, ranks low on the BNP’s list of priorities, and the party has no plans to campaign for either a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ vote.

The Bangladesh Awami League (AL) is not in the field. The Jatiya Party’s (JaPa) participation in the election is still uncertain. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to assume that AL, JaPa or 14-party alliance activists and supporters will rally behind the referendum.

Even if Jamaat-e-Islami and all its allied parties deploy their full organisational strength to secure a ‘Yes’ victory, optimism remains limited. Had the referendum been held before the parliamentary election, voter turnout would likely have been even lower. Although turnout may now be higher because of the concurrent election, participation in the referendum itself is far from guaranteed. With the BNP indifferent, it seems unlikely that only Jamaat, the NCP and their supporters will be able to draw the electorate’s attention to the referendum.

Bangladesh has held three referendums so far. The first two were essentially similar in nature. Both military rulers who seized power by suspending the constitution sought legitimacy through referendums, Ziaur Rahman in 1977 and HM Ershad in 1985. Although only a small number of people actually turned out, the official figures claimed 88.1 per cent and 72.2 per cent turnout respectively; with 98.9 per cent ‘Yes’ votes in the first and 94.5 per cent in the second.

Both referendums relied heavily on the administrative machinery, which also conducted the mobilisation. Ziauddin Choudhury, who held a senior administrative position in 1977, described the absurd spectacle of the first referendum: “Whether due to the over-enthusiasm of Ziaur Rahman’s advisers and government officials, or for other reasons, the declared turnout figures and the astonishingly high ‘Yes’ votes generated negative reactions both at home and abroad.” (Prothom Alo, 6 January 2019)

Ziauddin Choudhury witnessed the first referendum firsthand, but he was denied permission by Ershad to return to the country to witness the second. The second referendum, too, was a farce.

The third referendum was held in 1991, after parliament passed the law shifting from a presidential to a parliamentary system of government. Turnout was 35.2 per cent. Some 18.3 million voters (84.38 per cent) cast a ‘Yes’ vote for parliamentary democracy. Another 3.39 million (15.62 per cent) voted ‘No’.

Though turnout was low, the referendum was transparent and credible. The Jatiya Party initially opposed the return to the parliamentary system, but eventually accepted it. If we assume that its supporters voted ‘No’, even then the present referendum gives rise to legitimate concerns.

Because the parliamentary election and the referendum will be held on the same day, voter interest will naturally be centred on the national polls. Candidates, too, will focus on securing their own victory. How much room the referendum will have in the minds of voters is therefore questionable. If the BNP remains entirely indifferent, this will have a negative impact on the referendum’s outcome. BNP leaders have stated they neither will urge anyone to vote ‘Yes’, nor to vote ‘No’. As a result, many voters may not even bother to take the referendum ballot. They may simply vote for their preferred parliamentary candidate and return home.

The law does not specify what percentage of voter turnout is required for the referendum to be valid. If the ‘Yes’ votes exceed the ‘No’ votes, the referendum will be legally binding. But without the support of a clear majority for the democratic transformation undertaken by the interim government born of a mass uprising, the moral legitimacy of the process will remain in question, even if it passes the legal test.

* Sohrab Hassan is a journalist and poet.​

 

[Saif]

How clear and understandable is the wording of referendum question?

The thirteenth national parliamentary election is scheduled to be held in February 2026. The interim government has also decided to hold a referendum on constitutional reform on the same day. Citizens will be given the opportunity to express their views by voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a single...

en.prothomalo.com

How clear and understandable is the wording of referendum question?

Tariq Manzoor
Published: 01 Dec 2025, 09: 10

The thirteenth national parliamentary election is scheduled to be held in February 2026. The interim government has also decided to hold a referendum on constitutional reform on the same day. Citizens will be given the opportunity to express their views by voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a single question covering four issues. Since the question concerns constitutional reform, and since the major political parties have not reached consensus on all aspects of the reform, the importance of this referendum has increased. However, it is also necessary to consider whether the long question that has been formulated is sufficiently understandable to everyone.

In our country, 22 per cent of the population is still illiterate—in other words, they cannot read. The literacy rate is calculated based on people over seven years of age. This means that most illiterate people are adult voters who will not even be able to read the referendum question. And among those who can read, not all will necessarily understand the issues raised. Solely due to the complexity of the language, the reform proposal may remain unclear to a large segment of the population, and this may even discourage some from voting.

For the extremely poor in our country, the constitution is, in practice, little more than a “paper document.” They see the function of the state in terms of whether it ensures a safe and secure life. When the government fails to guarantee people’s basic rights—such as food, livelihood, and safety—the provisions of the constitution lose significance in their eyes. The proposals included in the referendum question will undoubtedly bring meaningful changes to the system of governance. But how much these changes will affect ordinary people’s daily lives and rights cannot be understood without real experience.

The referendum question contains terms such as “bicameral parliament,” “upper house,” and other administrative or political concepts that are entirely new in our context. But the complexity of the referendum question is not only due to terminology. In some parts, the question fails to convey the full idea. For example, one component of the referendum question reads: “The next parliament will be bicameral. An upper house consisting of 100 members will be formed in proportion to the votes received by parties in the national parliamentary election, and any constitutional amendment will require approval from a majority of the upper house.” But it does not clearly state what role and responsibilities these 100 additional members of the upper house—beyond the existing 300 members of parliament—will have.

Moreover, under the current system, it is not easy to make fundamental amendments to the constitution; such changes require the support of two-thirds of the members of parliament. The new proposal, however, requires approval from a majority of the upper house, meaning that the constitution could be amended with the support of just over half of its members. From the referendum question, it appears that the new proposal would make constitutional amendments easier than before. Since the ruling party will likely hold a majority in the upper house as well, questions arise about whether its members will be able to take decisions independently of party positions. There is also uncertainty about whether, using its numerical strength, the upper house could alter other provisions of the ‘July National Charter,’ such as electing the deputy speaker and parliamentary committee heads from the opposition, or limiting the prime minister’s term of office.

The last referendum in Bangladesh on the system of government was held in September 1991. At that time, the referendum question was: “Should the President give consent to the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Bill, 1991 of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh?” Only 35 per cent of registered voters participated in that referendum. Yet, just a few months earlier, more than 55 per cent of voters had cast ballots in the fifth parliamentary election held in February. As this time the referendum will take place alongside the national election, voter turnout is expected to be much higher. Even so, because of linguistic and conceptual ambiguity, citizens may feel compelled to abstain from voting or rely solely on the stance of political parties. Although the wording of the earlier referendum question was also complex, ordinary people did not struggle to decide since the major political parties expressed a unified position.

Some people argue that there are also procedural problems in this referendum. It is not quite logical to require voters to say “yes” or “no” to a single question that covers four separate issues, because a person may have different opinions on each one. In that case, the ballot could include four separate boxes beside each issue, allowing voters to make individual decisions for each question. To ensure quick counting of votes, the ballot should also be machine-readable. However, since a large portion of voters are illiterate or have very little education, this method may not function effectively either.

To make the entire matter clear and understandable to the public, the government should carry out explanatory campaigns about the referendum question and the July National Charter. Political parties also have the responsibility to clarify their positions on the question and the July Charter during their election campaigns. In the end, ordinary people may still be influenced by their party’s viewpoint when making a decision, but at least they will feel assured that their opinion played an important role in amending the constitution.

#Tariq Manzoor is a professor at the University of Dhaka​

 

[Saif]

Are we ready for a referendum we barely understand?

Aristotle once warned that democracy can easily slip away from its ideals when citizens are not well informed. He admired people deciding together, yet he was always uneasy about how those in control of information could shape or distort public opinion. More than two thousand years have passed...

en.prothomalo.com

Are we ready for a referendum we barely understand?

Mostafa Mushfiq
Published: 02 Dec 2025, 16: 41

Referendum Prothom Alo infographics

Aristotle once warned that democracy can easily slip away from its ideals when citizens are not well informed. He admired people deciding together, yet he was always uneasy about how those in control of information could shape or distort public opinion. More than two thousand years have passed, but that concern feels strangely familiar in Bangladesh today. As we move toward a referendum that asks citizens to weigh in on constitutional matters far beyond what most have ever been taught, Aristotle’s old worry suddenly feels very close.

On 13 November, Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus said that the referendum on the July National Charter would take place on the same day as the national election in February. At first glance it seems bold and efficient. It sounds like a confident democratic step. Yet behind that announcement sits a quieter question that many people hesitate to ask out loud. Do most voters really understand what they are being asked to approve or reject?

The referendum appears simple since it presents only one yes or no question. Inside that single choice, however, sit four major constitutional reforms. The proposals involve changing how a caretaker government might be formed, creating a bicameral parliament, altering the structure of constitutional bodies and requiring future governments to carry out thirty reform commitments agreed upon by political parties. Voters must either accept the entire package or reject all of it.

There is no option to choose selectively. It feels like being offered a whole plate of food at a buffet with no permission to take only what one prefers. At this point Aristotle’s warning returns once again. Democratic failure does not always begin with dictators. It can appear when people vote without understanding, while leaders celebrate a consent that is more symbolic than real.

Referendum in a nation still struggling with literacy

My worry is not abstract. It feels personal, shaped by what I see around me every day. According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics study from 2023, functional literacy for people aged seven and above is 62.92 percent. This only refers to basic abilities like reading, writing and completing simple daily tasks. It is not the same as political literacy. Among those aged 15 and above the rate is slightly lower at 60.77 percent.

For people between ages 11 and 45, the rate rises to 73.69 percent. This is progress, but it still means more than a quarter of this age group cannot confidently perform basic functional tasks. These figures are based on a test where scoring fifty out of one hundred is enough to be considered literate. When the topic shifts to political concepts, the gap widens dramatically.

-Do people know how an upper house functions?
-Do they understand proportional representation in actual political practice?
-Do they know why caretaker governments became controversial in the first place?
-Do they recognize the difference between constitutional reform and ordinary legislation?

If we answer honestly, the answer for a large portion of the population is no. This is not a failure of the people. It is a long standing failure of the system, which has not provided political education or clear information. Asking millions of citizens, many of whom struggle with fundamental literacy, to vote on sophisticated constitutional changes without proper explanation is not meaningful political participation. It becomes something closer to managed or manufactured approval.

A complex referendum unlike any before

Bangladesh now stands in front of what may become the most complex referendum in its history. It is tied to the July National Charter and to a wider hope for renewal. Complexity alone is not the only challenge. For the first time, the public is being asked to decide on several deep constitutional changes packed into one short and technical sentence. This is not a simple yes or no about leadership. It is not a single question about one clear policy. It is an entire set of institutional and philosophical changes presented to a public that has not had the time or the civic education required to understand them.

This moment looks very different from earlier referendums in Bangladesh. The referendums of 1977 and 1985 were widely interpreted by scholars as efforts by military rulers to gain public legitimacy. The referendum of 1991 was far more credible and focused on one easily understandable issue. It asked whether Bangladesh should return to parliamentary democracy. Whatever their shortcomings, those referendums asked direct questions.

The situation today is completely different. The stakes are higher, the question is broader and the public is far less prepared. A referendum of this magnitude needs civic knowledge, institutional clarity and an electorate that understands what is at risk. None of these conditions have been developed properly. Instead, people are left with confusing political discussions, bits of partisan messaging and technical explanations that rarely connect with everyday experience.

The real danger is not that voters will choose incorrectly. The danger is that they will decide without clarity on what their decision actually means. Many citizens already agree that reforms are necessary. Years of stagnation, concentration of power and political conflict have shown that change is needed. The more important issue is whether people have been prepared to make an informed decision. A referendum should reflect public will. Without genuine public understanding, it becomes symbolic rather than meaningful.

Bangladesh has always had a strange gap between political passion and political education. People are emotionally invested in politics, but they are rarely given structural political understanding. Our history is full of movements and turning points, from 1947 to 1971 to 1990. Yet these moments never turned into long term political education. The political dominance of the Awami League and the BNP encouraged a culture that rewarded loyalty more than knowledge. School textbooks shifted with each government. Civil society debates often took place in elite spaces. For most people, political ideas arrived as slogans, not lessons.

The fall of Ershad in 1990 was supposed to create a more democratic and informed society. Instead, Bangladesh inherited a political culture of fierce competition, centralized decision making and election related violence. Civil society was often included only for appearances. Most decisions were made privately by political elites and then presented to the public. People were expected to accept decisions instead of questioning them.

If this referendum truly intends to shape our future, then every citizen, from Dhaka to Dimla, should understand what their vote means. Democracy is not only the right to vote. It is also the right to know.

The current referendum follows a similar pattern. Political leaders and civil society members have already discussed and shaped the charter. Only afterward were citizens told to respond with a simple yes or no. They never received a chance to properly understand or debate the ideas. This is not exclusion through force. It is exclusion through complexity.

The democratic promise and the democratic problem

Democracy becomes stronger through involvement, but involvement without comprehension can weaken it. When people do not understand a referendum or its consequences, they become vulnerable to rumors, manipulated information and partisan pressure.

The anti-discrimination movement of 2024 showed that people can unite with tremendous clarity and courage when they recognize injustice. However, maintaining that unity and making it meaningful requires political literacy. Without understanding, early energy fades, groups lose direction and the future becomes uncertain.

A referendum is not just a vote. It should become a national conversation. At this moment, that conversation has barely begun.

What we need before the referendum

The government has a responsibility to ensure that citizens understand what they are voting on. People deserve to know the question on the ballot and the political moment surrounding it.

There should be explanatory videos on television. Documentaries should be aired. Social media content, infographics, radio discussions and village level leaflets are all necessary. People need simple explanations of what an upper house is. Televised debates with experts explaining the concepts in everyday language would help. Political parties must reduce slogan based campaigning and increase public education. People cannot decide on a bicameral parliament if they do not know how it works. They cannot judge a referendum if they do not understand the function of constitutional bodies.

Educational institutions must change as well. Textbooks often shift with political leadership. Students learn patriotism, but they rarely learn political literacy. Classrooms should explain why constitutions matter, how elections work and why political debates exist. Student clubs, reading circles, accessible rural libraries and open discussions about governance are essential. The youth showed courage in July 2024. They now need the knowledge that turns courage into sustained democratic participation.

The path forward

Bangladesh is facing a historic moment. Constitutional reform is not a minor adjustment. It is a transformation that can shape an entire generation. Such a transformation cannot rest on a yes or no question that most people cannot comfortably explain.

If this referendum truly intends to shape our future, then every citizen, from Dhaka to Dimla, should understand what their vote means. Democracy is not only the right to vote. It is also the right to know.

A referendum only has meaning when people understand it. Clarity encourages trust. Confusion creates distance. Bangladesh does not need more uncertainty. What it needs is patient civic education and open conversation, so that each voter walks to the polling booth with confidence about their choice.

* Mostafa Mushfiq is an undergraduate student of Anthropology at the University of Dhaka.​