As political parties failed to reach any consensus on referendum within the one-week window stipulated by the interim government, the onus inevitably fell on the chief adviser. Against all speculations, he came up with a clearly thought-out referendum proposal that appeared – at least on paper – to placate all competing factions.

Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus on Thursday announced that the referendum on the July National Charter would be held on the election day scheduled to be held in the first half of February 2026. Immediately after the announcement, political analysts and legal experts are exploring every nook and cranny of the issue. In the middle of all these, what everyone forgot to take notice of is the viewpoint of the masses.

First and foremost, the fact that four proposals will be covered in one single question is very confusing and not appropriate for many voters. In a country where nearly one in five people aged seven and above – a significant portion of them being voters – remains illiterate (around 21.1%), it is very unlikely that every voter will understand the depth and implications of the proposals placed under one question.

In fact, if we delve deeper into the proposals, we will see that most of them are anaphoric references, relating to the decisions and reforms outlined in the July Charter. The question that pops up is how many voters have actually perused whatever written in the charter. Most importantly, how many of them actually understand the things proposed in the charter.

Even the proposals are not comprehensible to ordinary voters. For example, it’s written in the second proposal that “the next National Parliament shall be bicameral (two chambers). A 100-member upper house will be formed in proportion to the votes obtained by the political parties in the national election, and any constitutional amendment shall require the approval of a majority of upper house members.”

How many voters truly understand what a bicameral parliament entails? Can a farmer in a remote village or a rickshaw-puller navigating chaotic city roads be expected to grasp proportional representation or the mechanics of an upper house?

Out of curiosity, I asked a rickshaw-puller and a university postgraduate – two individuals from very different socio-economic realities. Neither could explain the concept of a bicameral legislature, nor could either recall what the July Charter or its reform agenda contains.

If this is the reality, then what are we actually trying to achieve through this referendum and whose interests are we trying to serve?

One thing is clear – Prof Muhammad Yunus has played a calculated political hand, balancing between demands put forward by different political parties. On the one hand, he announced the plan to hold the referendum and the election on the same day (in accordance with BNP’s demand); on the other hand, he kept the proposal of PR in the referendum issue (aligning with Jamaat’s proposal). This is how he pacified both the BNP and the Jamaat. Amidst all these strategic moves, the missing dot is the cross-sections of people as the interim government has made it all the more incomprehensible and difficult for them to decide.

And then comes the most glaring dilemma: voters are not being offered a genuine choice. With four proposals squeezed into one question, voters must either say “Yes” to all or “No” to all – regardless of how they feel about each individual point. One may like two proposals, dislike one and be undecided on another. Yet, the ballot offers no such nuance. This is, in the truest sense, a Hobson’s choice as the voters actually have no real choice to express differing opinions.

The country has witnessed referendums before. But those were mostly focused on a single question asking for people’s opinion on a single point. Ziaur Rahman conducted a referendum in 1977 focusing on presidential confidence; Hussain Muhammad Ershad held a referendum in 1985 on continuation of military rule; whereas Acting President Shahabuddin Ahmed organised a referendum in 1991 on restoring the parliamentary system. All these referendums were meant to seek answers to a single question wherein the referendum by this interim government is designed to seek opinion on four different proposals – all set under a single question. This will not only confuse the voters but also discourage many not to opt for any opinion at all.

The government has already dropped the bombshell; there is now no going back. At the moment, one of the most immediate and constructive steps the government can take is to ensure that citizens get their heads around the proposals placed before them. Here, the Election Commission (EC), as the constitutionally mandated body responsible for managing electoral exercises, has to play an instrumental role in creating awareness among the voters.

The EC should undertake extensive campaigns aimed at breaking down each proposal included in the referendum question into simple and comprehensible language. Many citizens, especially those belonging to the lower echelon of the society, may find legal terminology or constitutional jargon difficult to understand. Without clarity, the risk increases that voters will rely on hearsay, partisan messaging, or misinformation while deciding on the answer.

In addition to this, it is equally important to effectively communicate the 30 proposals outlined in the July Charter to the voters as many of them have no clue about what’s being articulated in those reform proposals.

In a country where there is a diverse population with varying literacy levels and access to information, the key now is to communicate effectively and meaningfully with the voters in order to make the referendum and the spirit it stands for successful.