On February 12, Bangladesh will conduct an unprecedented dual exercise in democratic expression, a national election and a constitutional referendum together. The procedural mechanics of pink ballots for the referendum and black-and-white ballots for parliamentary seats raise a far more troubling question: has the interim government that emerged from the July 2024 uprising already compromised the very democratic transition it claims to champion?
However, two critical contradictions have emerged that deserve closer scrutiny than the government’s defenders have thus far allowed.
First, there’s the profound contradiction between electoral neutrality and reform advocacy. The interim government claims moral authority to campaign actively for constitutional reforms. Yet this same government controls the entire state apparatus, including the officials who will administer both the election and referendum on the same day.
This creates what constitutional expert Shahdeen Malik calls ‘direct interference,’ while Ali Riaz defends it as legitimate advocacy born from revolutionary mandate.
Second, the mobilisation of state resources, the engagement of private sector entities, including garment factories, banks, and NGOs, raises questions about democratic fairness. It suggests the bureaucracy hasn’t evolved beyond authoritarian practices.
Does an interim government born from a popular uprising possess the authority to weaponise the entire state apparatus in support of its preferred constitutional outcome?
The government’s press wing defends Chief Adviser Yunus’ support for YES votes by stating it’s ‘consistent with reformist mandate of interim government’ and represents ‘established international democratic practice.’ The statement emphasises that ‘ultimate decision rests with people of Bangladesh’ and that ‘leadership does not negate that choice. It helps clarify it.’ This reasoning sounds superficially democratic until one examines what ‘clarification’ means when delivered through comprehensive state mobilisation.
Furthermore, the government launched campaigns through the Chief Adviser’s Office across all ministries, divisions, departments, private sector entities, including garment factories, banks, and NGOs. Government banners carry an unambiguous message: ‘Vote ‘Yes’ to implement all reforms; vote ‘No’ and gain nothing. For change, vote ‘Yes’.’ This framing presents voters not with neutral information but with a stark ultimatum: accept the government’s package entirely or forfeit reform altogether.
Meanwhile, nineteen advisers and one special assistant conducted outreach across sixty-one districts during the third week of January, with district administrations organising meetings involving local officials, law enforcement, and public representatives. These advisers highlighted the benefits of voting YES, effectively transforming the state’s administrative apparatus into a campaign machine.
Environment Adviser Rizwana Hasan warned that voting NO means ‘missing rare opportunity to restore balance in society, possibly for many years,’ while Local Government Adviser Adilur Rahman Khan declared voting YES ‘essential to prevent return to enforced disappearances, secret detention centres and torture.’
When government ministers frame the choice as democracy versus authoritarianism, reform versus regression, they don’t merely advocate for proposals – they delegitimise opposition as tacit support for repression. Such framing leaves little room for citizens who might support some constitutional reforms while questioning others, or who might believe alternative reform pathways deserve consideration.
The interim government’s primary responsibility is organising credible elections that restore democratic governance. Every resource diverted toward referendum campaigning, every official instruction to promote YES votes, potentially undermines this core mission.
Indeed, Election Commissioner Abdur Rahmanel Masud stressed that returning officers and assistant returning officers must remain neutral and cannot campaign for YES or NO, yet the interim government simultaneously instructed officials, including deputy commissioners, to conduct ‘awareness campaigns’ with messages urging YES votes.
This creates an untenable position for the 1.4 million government officials and employees who will work during the election. According to the Election Commission’s warnings, those engaged in election duties work under EC jurisdiction and are no longer under government control per election laws.
Any breach of neutrality through official positions could result in prison sentences of up to five years under Article 86 of the Representation of the People Order 1972. Yet how can deputy commissioners who organised pro-YES meetings credibly claim neutrality when they serve as returning officers?
Perhaps nowhere does the government’s campaign reveal its problematic character more clearly than in the mobilisation of state financial institutions. The Bangladesh Bank’s directive to commercial banks represents a particularly troubling escalation that blurs lines between public institutions and political advocacy in ways that may prove difficult to reverse.
During a meeting chaired by Governor Ahsan H Mansur, bankers were explicitly asked to advocate for YES votes. Banks were requested to provide funding to NGOs supporting public awareness efforts, with Bangladesh Bank suggesting the use of banks’ CSR funds for NGO-led referendum awareness programmes. The central bank sent letters to top executives requesting that they display banners at branches to encourage participation.
Moreover, using CSR funds – intended for social benefit – to finance political campaigns transforms corporate social responsibility into state-directed propaganda spending. This sets a dangerous precedent where future governments of any ideological stripe might claim similar authority to commandeer private sector resources for political purposes.
Economist Debapriya Bhattacharya characterised the directive as a ‘breach of referendum fairness,’ stating emphatically that ‘government must not become party to this. By taking sides, the state is practising coercion – what I would call the Hasina method. It proves bureaucracy hasn’t evolved.’
The Cabinet Division issued a circular urging all ministries, divisions, directorates, and agencies to ensure full cooperation with the Election Commission, emphasising that officers and employees must perform assigned electoral duties ‘impartially and in accordance with law.’ Yet this formal call for impartiality sits uneasily alongside government instructions for the same officials to promote YES votes.
Yet many of these same officials participated in government awareness campaigns carrying pro-YES messaging. A candidate in Sherpur-3 even received a show-cause notice for campaigning on referendum issues, while government officials conducted similar activities with apparent impunity.
When the government mobilises state machinery, when banks display political banners, when officials who will count ballots first campaign for YES votes, these actions don’t merely raise questions about this specific referendum.
The massive awareness campaigns, the framing of choice as reform versus regression, all treat voters as subjects to be persuaded rather than citizens empowering themselves through deliberation.
Both the writers are Adjunct Faculty, Department of Media Studies and Journalism (MSJ), University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB)
