For the past few days, discussions across the country have been heating up over the issue of the 'referendum.' Newspapers are abuzz with speculation about when the referendum will be held and how different political parties view it. But do the real owners of Bangladesh, the people who will actually vote, know what the referendum is all about?
I spoke with a few people on Tuesday: a journalist from a district town, a schoolteacher, a van driver, and a college student from outside the district headquarters. I asked them, “The government’s Consensus Commission is planning to hold a ‘referendum’ in the future. Are you aware of this?”
The local journalist replied, “This vote is to give constitutional recognition to the July Charter.”Then I asked, “But the July Charter contains many points. Exactly which issues do you know this referendum is about?” He replied, “I don’t really know the details that well.”
The schoolteacher said, “I saw on the news that there will be a referendum. But I still don’t know what it will be about.” When I asked the same question to the van driver, he responded with a question of his own: “What kind of vote is this? We know that to bring the government to power, votes must be cast for the sheaf of paddy or the boat. Now I hear the boat cannot be voted for. But what exactly is this referendum?”
A student studying in Class 12 at a local college replied, “The government is planning this ‘referendum’ to give constitutional recognition to those who died in July-August last year and to provide legal protection for those who were involved in the movement.”
After hearing these responses, I felt a certain sense of unease. The government’s Consensus Commission has been discussing the reforms under the state-repair program with political parties for a long time, and these discussions have been broadcast live on television. Yet people still do not know what the referendum is actually about. They have no clear idea of which issues the next government might change based on their vote.
Meanwhile, political parties have already expressed their support for holding the referendum, signaling a “yes.” But who will take responsibility for informing the public, the very people who will vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on implementing the July Charter, so they understand what they are actually voting for?
Amid the country’s crisis, discussions and debates are ongoing among various sections of society about whether this effort to give constitutional recognition to the July Charter through a yes-or-no vote will be positive or negative.
Aside from those who regularly attend and speak at the Consensus Commission, it is equally important to question how many of the bullet points in the July Charter are actually known to the leaders and activists of their political parties. Likewise, there will inevitably be questions about how feasible it is to embed the Charter into the constitution without consulting stakeholders outside the country’s political society.
The biggest question remains: in a country where half the owners are women, the attempt to draft a “constitutional” basis through the July Charter, decided by a male-dominated Consensus Commission that disregards women’s opinions, exposes the patriarchal nature of our governance system.
Although in the past we have seen opportunities for legislative additions and deletions in parliament under the guidance of the country’s two long-serving female prime ministers, one cannot ignore the absence of any female representatives within the interim government’s Consensus Commission or among the political parties.
Without female representation among the members of the government’s Consensus Commission, even though there were opportunities for women leaders within each political party to participate, their voices were not considered. As a result, the absence of women’s perspectives in the male-dominated July Charter does not reflect genuine democratic consensus.
Yes, it is true that the country has long been governed by politicians. But there are ongoing questions about how much importance is given to the opinions of stakeholders outside of the political elite.
We want a strong governance system for the future, where the opinions of all segments of society are respected, and no individual interest can be realized at the expense of democratic progress
We must have the opportunity to understand not only the views of the general populace but also the reactions of people from the hill districts regarding the contents of the July Charter. In particular, it is essential that the owners of the state—the citizens—have a clear understanding of what referendum-centered decisions are being made and why the referendum is necessary. This is a task that the government can undertake, and political parties can also engage in campaigns to shape public opinion. Simply imposing a yes-or-no question in favour of the July Charter as a mandatory choice undermines the true opinions of the citizens.
We also need to consider what percentage of the country’s total voters must cast their ballots for the referendum result to be considered valid. For instance, if out of 100 eligible voters only 30 show up at the polling stations, and 28 of them vote “yes” in the referendum to give the July Charter a mandate, then the government must acknowledge its failure to engage the remaining voters, and so must the politicians.
On 31 May 1977, The New York Times ran a headline on page six about a referendum in Bangladesh: “Martial Rule in Bangladesh Approved in Referendum.” The report noted that President Ziaur Rahman won a confidence vote with only one-third of the electorate, raising the question: how many actually voted? Those who did not vote were expressing their political stance. Therefore, if in the future a scenario is created where 90 per cent of votes cast support the July Charter, questions will remain about how many voters actually participated.
The responsibility to clearly communicate the contents of the July Charter lies not only with the media but also with the government, which should share information about the purpose and objectives of the “referendum” among all segments of society. We must remember that the number of illiterate people in this country is far from small; those who cannot read or write must also receive this message.
In our system of governance, open discussions are necessary about issues such as forming higher-level bodies through the PR system, the rationale for the Prime Minister not holding multiple posts, granting the President the authority to appoint the Governor of Bangladesh Bank, and the necessity of appointing the Anti-Corruption Commission through an independent committee free from Prime Ministerial control, including their positive and negative implications. The necessity of a “referendum” for matters emerging in a context where one party demands it while another opposes it must be accountable to the owners of the state, the citizens.
Moreover, in the absence of political parties that have withdrawn from elections by executive order, it is crucial to discuss how the implementation of the July Charter and subsequent demands to keep it active or annul it will be addressed. Citizens must have a clear understanding of whether printing ballot papers at a cost of millions and conducting a vote could leave loopholes for a government to devalue this Charter after coming to power.
Lawmaking for the governance of the state can never serve as a guinea pig. One government may like it, another may oppose it, but repeated deviations from the state’s core objectives due to such conflicts send no reassuring message. We want a strong governance system for the future, where the opinions of all segments of society are respected, and no individual interest can be realized at the expense of democratic progress.
* Nadim Mahmud is a researcher at the University of California. He can be contacted at [email protected]
* The opinions expressed are the author’s own