Referendum without shaping outlines

Holding a national election is a very important event for any country only more so when it is in a momentous transition. Bangladesh, following the July-August uprising, was on the cusp of such a new order. Whether the historical change will materialise desirably, however, hinges not so much on the election but on the framework of governance worked out by the country's leadership and stakeholders.

The incumbent government has not got its priority right. It should have been aware of its limitations and focus on its premier objective of turning the system of governance pro-people in place of the oligarchic and dynastic rule. It went overboard where it should never have ventured and thus dissipating its attention. Indecision and foot-dragging have their fair reflection in the consequences. Now the political imbroglio involving arrangement of national election and July charter referendum on the same day has given rise to more uncertainties and confusion than before.

A national poll is a poll of the highest order, so is a referendum on a charter that seeks to change the system in order to make governance meaningful and at the service of the people irrespective of their social standing. In case of Bangladesh, this referendum perhaps carries more weight than an election. When election to parliament can be relegated to a farce by the ruling party, addressing the system to plug the loopholes is more important than a mere election. Thus the importance of referendum has been diluted by the decision of holding both on the same day.

The crucial point here is the subject of referendum. The majority of voters will not have the slightest idea about what they have been asked to endorse or reject. When the July charter is yet to get a unanimous approval ---with some tendering their notes of dissent--- from the political parties, asking for 'yes' or 'no' vote on the issue sounds naive. Moreover, the positive or negative verdict sought from voters on a vague issue makes the exercise ludicrous. Politicians who have criticised the government query elaborated in four distinct segments are right in doing so. All four questions have their distinct implications. Together they do not make the query whole. But the franchise has been asked to exercise 'yes' or 'no' vote. People can endorse one and reject others. How come they approve of all when they have disagreement with one or more of the four questions?

However, agreement or disagreement on one or the other issues follows only when the voters have understood the meaning of the questions posed. Not many people have gone through the July charter nor are they expected to do so in the remaining time before polls. The reference to the July charter in the four questions makes it incumbent on the voters that they read the charter thoroughly. Not all the voters are literate or educated enough to make the meaning of the charter even if it was available. In a country where voters vote for candidates on the basis of party symbols or in rare cases banking on popularity and personal charisma, is not it too much to expect informed verdict from voters on the referendum issue? Then there is no provision for casting votes on the upper house, where members will be proportionate to the vote, as if the upper house is a settled issue!  

Presentation of the referendum on July charter in such confusing and illegible manner may lead to further uncertainty about the plebiscite. Instead of making things simple and clear, a mess of the election and referendum has been made. This may be the result of the absence of enough political acumen or a work of muddled minds done deliberately. If the people fail to appreciate the subject of a referendum because of the government's inability to present it in simple and clear terms, it is not the people's fault but of those who are in charge. Let the matter be brief, simple and clear. Asking people to vote on an issue not crystal clear to them is a gross injustice.

nilratanhalder2000@yahoo.com