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