An informed referendum or a mere rubber-stamp?

A referendum on 48 key proposals of the National Consensus Commission seems almost inevitable. It will either be held on the same day of the general election, or earlier, as Jamaat-e-Islami and several like-minded Islamist parties are demanding.

The consensus commission proposed that key proposals relating to the constitution be put to a referendum with the following question: "Do you approve the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, 2025, and the proposals for constitutional reforms included in the first schedule of this order?"

Alternatively, the referendum question will refer to a draft bill containing these proposals. This bill will provide the incoming parliament, which will double as a constituent assembly, 270 days to address the proposals and incorporate them into the constitution or, presumably, reject them. However, the bill will stipulate, if there is no decision within 270 days, then these proposals will be considered to have become part of the constitution by default.

Read more

Let’s hold a three-point referendum

This article does not intend to address the absurdity of such a proposition that contemplates the possibility of sweeping changes in the constitution taking effect even while there is a sitting parliament. However, such a spectacular travesty begs to be mentioned even if in passing.

Coming back to the referendum, both alternatives boil down to essentially the same thing. Voters would have to either say yes or no to the entire set of 48 proposals in one go. This article argues that it is not just impractical but also undemocratic.

Let us begin with why it is impractical.

The 48 proposals in question are a result of months-long negotiations between the parties, and yet, some have only relented with notes of dissent to register their disagreement. There are different viewpoints about several proposals. Some consider them too bold, some not bold enough. The underlying rationale during the political negotiations was, of course, how these would play out in real life and encumber or facilitate governance, which made agreement even more complex.

For instance, while the upper chamber of the parliament was widely accepted, the current proposals do not give it sufficient power to shut down a bill. The upper chamber can, at best, refuse to ratify a bill that the lower chamber floats. But it will be up to the lower house to amend it as per the upper house's recommendations or send it directly to the president for approval, provided the bill passes a second round of votes in the lower house. Parties have even objected to the upper house having any say in constitutional amendment if it is constituted based on proportional representation.

Even a simple proposal that people of Bangladesh will be called Bangladeshi, omitting the mention of "Bangalee," as a nation, will face opposition from some people, as it would seem to be doing away with a core element of their identity. Several parties have already objected to changing the basic principles of the state, insisting that the original--democracy, nationalism, socialism and secularism—be kept.

The point is, no two people can agree on such a set of 48 proposals, each of which has nuanced answers. One might agree with 47 of the proposals and not agree with one, which would then result in a "no" vote, cancelling out the whole exercise. Instead, citizens must be allowed to express their opinion on each of the proposals individually. Putting up a set of proposals carries an implicit message of "take it, or leave it," which is hardly the attitude to adopt with the sovereign citizens of a republic. Such a question on the referendum is, in fact, inviting the electorate to come back with a resounding "NO."

Read more

The ‘consensus’ fiasco: An experiment that shouldn't have failed

Now, about the undemocratic nature of the referendum.

The constitutional proposals are complicated and have profound ramifications. They need reading and rereading to grasp the meaning of the proposals. Even for many, who have covered the consensus commission exhaustively, read the entire July charter several times, and keenly followed the entire process from the constitution reform commission, a fair bit of confusion about the significance of the proposals remains. One can only imagine how difficult it would be for a lay person to understand them.

A sound understanding of the proposals could have been achieved through discussions and debates coupled with an active dissemination programme across the country. There has been nothing of the sort. Neither the government nor the parties, which endorsed the proposal for the referendum, took any steps to explain the proposal to the people. In fact, an easily accessible format of the charter has not been widely disseminated or distributed to the people.

Even Jamaat-e-Islami and its allies, campaigning for the referendum to be held in November, have conducted no such awareness campaigns or held discussions about any of the charter's proposals either. One must then question how they expect the voters to arrive at an informed decision about this set of proposals and then cast their votes. The same question applies to the other parties and the government as well. What are they doing to explain the merits and demerits of the proposals to their electorate/ citizens?

Nothing at all. Whatever the people know about the July charter or the proposals is through news coverage. There have been no efforts from anyone else. When it comes down to practicalities, then, parties would simply campaign for voters to say "yes" or "no" based on their rhetoric from the podiums and social media posts without explaining why.

Read more

The plausible future facing the country

Judging by the government's enthusiastic attempts not to ruffle anyone's feathers, it will probably shirk away from its responsibility of disseminating and explaining the proposals. As such, all that we are heading for in the name of a referendum is a mere rubber-stamp on the much-vaunted reforms from those who would be most affected—the people. Sadly, the political parties and the government are all complicit in this treachery. That is hardly the spirit of July.

Tanim Ahmed is digital editor at The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.