Why Bangladesh’s Interim Govt Isn’t Doing Anything Wrong by Campaigning For a ‘Yes’ Vote

As Bangladesh moves toward a national election slated for February 12, the interim government has taken a decision that has unsettled critics but aligns squarely with democratic precedent.

It is campaigning for a “Yes” vote in the referendum that will accompany the polls on the same day. The charge levelled against it – that a government advocating a referendum outcome undermines neutrality – sounds persuasive at first glance. It is also, on closer inspection, mistaken.

The referendum is not a procedural sideshow. It is a political instrument aimed at ratifying structural reforms proposed by the National Consensus Commission – changes the interim administration argues are essential to prevent a return to the authoritarian excesses that have defined much of Bangladesh’s recent past. 

To expect the government entrusted with shepherding the country through transition to remain agnostic about reforms it openly believes in is to misunderstand the role governments play in democratic systems.

Legally, the case against the interim government is thin. Bangladesh’s constitutional and statutory framework does not prohibit a government from advocating one outcome in a referendum. 

The administration has publicly stated that it sought legal opinions and was advised that campaigning for a “Yes” vote does not breach referendum law or election regulations. 

The law draws a clear distinction between persuasion and coercion – between making an argument and misusing the machinery of the state to compel assent. So far, the critics have demonstrated unease, not illegality.

This discomfort often stems from a flawed conception of neutrality. In democratic practice, neutrality is demanded of institutions – election commissions, courts, civil servants – not of political executives. 

Governments are, by definition, political actors. They campaign for policies, defend reforms, and seek public endorsement for their agendas. A referendum does not suspend that reality; it heightens it.

The United Kingdom’s 2016 Brexit referendum offers a useful point of comparison. The British government not only supported a “Remain” vote; it produced and distributed an official document spelling out why it believed staying in the European Union was in the national interest. 

The intervention was controversial and sharply criticized, but it was not unlawful. Nor did it invalidate the referendum. Voters heard the government’s case—and rejected it. The legitimacy of the result rested on the electorate’s freedom to disagree.

Ireland’s 2015 referendum on same-sex marriage reinforces the point from the opposite direction. There, the government openly and unapologetically supported a “Yes” vote, joining civil society groups and human rights advocates in arguing for constitutional change. 

That advocacy did not taint the process; it clarified it. The campaign succeeded because it persuaded voters, not because it coerced them. The state’s role was visible, contested, and ultimately subordinate to public judgment.

These examples expose a recurring fallacy in Bangladesh’s debate that government advocacy automatically contaminates democratic choice. In reality, democracies are not weakened by arguments; they are weakened by the absence of fair conditions under which arguments compete. 

The ethical red line, in all good senses, is not crossed when a government explains why it supports a reform. It is crossed when it uses public resources to drown out opposition, intimidates dissenters, or denies rival campaigns access to media and public space.

The interim government has framed its referendum campaign as an exercise in public explanation rather than administrative compulsion. That framing matters. With a national election on February 12, the electorate will be making two judgments simultaneously: one on who should govern, and another on how the system itself should be structured. 

Shielding voters from the government’s views would impoverish the debate.

The real test of legitimacy, then, is not whether the interim government campaigns for a “Yes” vote, but whether the referendum is conducted under conditions of openness and choice. 

Are opponents free to campaign? Are institutions impartial? Are voters able to reject the government’s recommendation without fear or penalty? If the answer is yes, the referendum’s credibility remains intact – regardless of how loudly the government makes its case.

In the end, a referendum is not a courtroom requiring silence from one side. It is a political argument put to the people. The interim government has chosen to argue. On February 12, voters will decide whether they are convinced.

Faisal Mahmud is the Minister (Press) of Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.