Dr. Forqan Uddin Ahmed:
The core philosophy of democracy shows respect for the will of the people. The people are the true owners of the state, and the government merely acts as their representative. This principle finds its most direct expression in the referendum, where citizens themselves participate in making crucial decisions through a simple “Yes” or “No” vote.
It is a process that allows people to express their views directly on national issues instead of relying solely on parliamentary or governmental decisions. Thus, the referendum stands as one of the brightest practices of democracy and the most authentic reflection of popular sovereignty.
The term referendum originates from the Latin word referre, meaning “to bring back” or “to refer to the people.” In modern state systems, a referendum is a constitutional or policy-based mechanism through which the government refers a particular issue or proposal back to the citizens for their final decision. Many countries around the world have a long-standing tradition of holding referendums. Switzerland remains the most exemplary case; it holds several referendums each year on constitutional and policy matters. In Switzerland, a certain portion of citizens can even compel the parliament to hold a referendum. In the United Kingdom, the historic 2016 “Brexit” referendum decided whether the country would remain in or leave the European Union, where 51.9% voted to leave. France, in 1958, held a referendum that led to the establishment of the presidential Fifth Republic with a new constitution. Similarly, in 2017, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey organised a referendum that transformed the country from a parliamentary to a presidential system. In countries like Egypt, Indonesia, and Venezuela, referendums have been used to adopt new constitutions, validate governments, or expand executive powers. Therefore, from a global perspective, referendums have sometimes strengthened democracy and at other times served as tools of power centralisation. The true value of a referendum depends on how transparent it is, how freely opinions can be expressed, and how independently citizens can participate.
One of the most controversial referendums took place in Turkey on April 16, 2017. The issue at stake was whether to replace the parliamentary system with a presidential one, which would significantly increase the president’s powers. According to official results, 51.4% voted “Yes” and 48.6% voted “No,” with a voter turnout of nearly 85%. The narrow margin and high turnout made the referendum politically sensitive and highly debated.
Critics questioned the transparency of the process and expressed concerns over power centralisation. Under the new constitution, the president gained direct authority over law-making, declaring emergencies, and making key appointments. Many critics argued that this marked an excessive concentration of power that could undermine democratic checks and balances. The conduct of the vote was also criticised. Opposition parties alleged that both the media and administrative bodies were biased toward the government. International observers offered mixed opinions, while acknowledging a largely peaceful vote, they raised questions about its transparency. The mere 2.8% difference between “Yes” and “No” votes made the result contentious, deepening political polarisation across the nation. Ultimately, the referendum transformed Turkey’s system of governance and had a lasting impact on its political and social structure.
In Bangladesh, though the history of the referendum is short, it holds significant political importance. Since independence, three national referendums have been held, in 1977, 1985, and 1991. The first referendum took place on May 30, 1977, under President Ziaur Rahman to test public confidence in his policies. Voters were asked, “Do you have confidence in the policies of President Ziaur Rahman?” Officially, about 88% of voters participated, and 99% voted “Yes.” However, opposition parties dismissed it as a means to legitimise his rule. In March 1985, another referendum was held under President Hussain Muhammad Ershad, where 94% voted “Yes.” Again, opposition parties boycotted the process, alleging widespread irregularities. Both referendums largely served as instruments for military rulers to consolidate political legitimacy. The 1991 referendum, however, was a turning point; it approved the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, restoring the parliamentary system in place of the presidential one. Around 84% of voters supported the amendment, marking Bangladesh’s return to a democratic path. Later, the Fifteenth Amendment (2011) removed the constitutional provision that required referendums, meaning there is now no obligation to hold one on any national issue.
In recent years, Bangladesh’s political atmosphere has been turbulent. Major opposition parties, particularly the BNP, boycotted several national elections, raising concerns about electoral integrity. After the 2024 general election, international actors, including the United States and the United Kingdom, stated that the polls were not “free and fair.” The UN human rights chief also condemned actions that suppressed freedom of assembly and expression ahead of the election. According to Voice of America reports, although the Election Commission declared a 41.8% voter turnout, both international observers and opposition parties expressed deep scepticism. The commission had earlier reported only 27.15% turnout during the final hour of voting, which then suddenly jumped to 41.8%, prompting claims of manipulation. In addition, pre-election police crackdowns and mass arrests of opposition activists contributed to a repressive atmosphere that hindered democratic participation.
The advantages and risks of referendums remain subjects of debate. Critics argue that political parties already express their policies through electoral manifestos, so separate referendums are unnecessary. One viewpoint holds that if a political party wins an election, its policies are implicitly endorsed by the people, giving it the mandate to amend the constitution accordingly. Furthermore, complex referendums combining multiple proposals can confuse voters, and the passing of such referendums might still leave portions of the public dissatisfied. On the other hand, advocates claim that referendums can legitimise constitutional reforms beyond party politics. The National Consensus Commission’s report noted that, despite deep political divisions, there is some preliminary agreement about the need for “participatory referendums.” Yet, there remains concern that undue influence or external pressure could invalidate public opinion. Past experiences show that voter turnout doesn’t always reflect public understanding or enthusiasm. For instance, in the 1991 referendum, although about 90% of citizens reportedly supported the idea, only 35% actually voted. Thus, even with apparent popularity, low participation can make referendum outcomes less representative. To address this, public awareness campaigns, effective voter education, and transparent management are essential.
At present, Bangladesh’s political parties remain divided over key issues such as the Election Commission and interim government systems. The BNP continues to demand reforms for an impartial Election Commission, updated voter lists, and restoration of caretaker government powers, boycotting the 2023 election over these issues. BNP leader Ruhul Kabir Rizvi remarked that unnecessary debates over referendums could hinder democracy. Meanwhile, several Islamic and independent parties have voiced support for holding a referendum. Amid declining electoral participation, public frustration and political fatigue are evident. The overall political climate appears to be drifting toward one-party dominance, while calls for democratic reform are growing louder.
When asked about implementing the July Charter’s recommendations, the interim government’s Environment, Forest, Climate Change, and Water Resources Adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan said that the government is analysing the proposals and will soon determine the next course of action. The Law Adviser added, “We must make decisions soon. The Chief Adviser will lead, and we’ll assist. No individual will make unilateral decisions, rest assured. The Chief Adviser will consult us if needed, and a decision will be taken very soon.”
In summary, for Bangladesh, a referendum could potentially strengthen democratic legitimacy by directly verifying public opinion. However, without proper legal mechanisms, it cannot function effectively. To make any referendum credible and meaningful in today’s political context, a broad political consensus, open dialogue, and well-organised implementation are essential. Otherwise, referendums risk deepening existing divisions rather than resolving them. A constructive referendum can be a vital democratic exercise, allowing citizens, the true owners of the state, to directly participate in policymaking. Globally, referendums have both advanced and undermined democracy, depending entirely on the transparency and freedom of the process. In Bangladesh, the historical experience is mixed, yet the potential remains undeniable. If political parties can rebuild mutual trust and if the Election Commission can act impartially and transparently, referendums could once again serve as a platform for the genuine voice of the people. But first, public confidence must be restored, freedom of expression guaranteed, and democratic institutions strengthened. Only then can a referendum become not just a repetition of history but the beginning of a new chapter, a renaissance of democracy in Bangladesh.
(The writer is former Deputy Director General, Bangladesh Ansar and VDP).
