There is a growing debate regarding the Yunus government's role in a potential referendum. Many argue that for the sake of neutrality, the government should remain a silent organizer and refrain from campaigning for a "Yes" vote. However, historical precedents—both in Bangladesh and internationally—suggest a different reality.
In many democracies, governments do more than just set the date; they actively campaign for a specific outcome.
As Bangladesh looks toward potential reforms, the question remains: Should the current interim government remain a neutral facilitator, or does history give them the license to advocate for the "Yes" vote?
In many democracies, governments do more than just set the date; they actively campaign for a specific outcome.
International Precedents
When a government proposes a major change, it often puts its full weight behind that vision:- Philippines (1987): President Corazon Aquino did not stay neutral during the constitutional ratification; she publicly and vigorously campaigned for the "Yes" vote.
- Turkey (2017): During the constitutional amendment referendum, the government and the President led a massive national "Yes" campaign.
- United Kingdom (2016): In the Brexit referendum, the UK government officially backed the "Remain" option, even sending informational leaflets to every household in the country to explain their stance.
The Bangladeshi Experience
Looking back at Bangladesh’s history, referendums have rarely been "neutral" affairs. The government in power has historically used the process to consolidate legitimacy:- 1977 Referendum: After taking office, Major General Ziaur Rahman sought a public mandate. The setup was far from impartial—the "Yes" ballot boxes featured the President’s portrait, while the "No" boxes remained plain. This visual branding was, in itself, a powerful campaign tool.
- 1985 Referendum: Similarly, during Hussain Muhammad Ershad’s tenure, the referendum to validate his policies used the same tactic. Voters were asked to cast their ballots in a "Yes" box featuring Ershad's image if they supported him, or a "No" box if they did not.
The Core Question
The history of the last three referendums in Bangladesh, alongside global examples, suggests that governments often view a referendum not just as a neutral polling exercise, but as a campaign for their own policy or legitimacy.As Bangladesh looks toward potential reforms, the question remains: Should the current interim government remain a neutral facilitator, or does history give them the license to advocate for the "Yes" vote?
-Inspired by Omor Dhali
Do you believe a government should stay neutral during a referendum, or should they be allowed to campaign for the option they believe is best?