Jon DanilowiczIn recent days, there has been much discussion regarding the timing of Bangladesh’s elections and the appropriate tenure of the interim government.
This debate comes amidst continuing efforts by supporters of the previous regime to destabilize the country.
Most recently, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party Leadership has weighed in, arguing for elections to take place soon.
Chief Advisor Yunus has faced this question in interviews and his seemingly straight forward answers are now being spun both by those who are hoping for elections in the near term and those who want the interim government to delay its departure.
From the beginning, I have argued that the interim government should focus on the task at hand (designing and implementing reform) and avoid publicly announcing its expiration date.
This view has been informed by my evaluation of the 2007-08 Caretaker Government, which lost all of its leverage over the political parties once it announced that elections would take place by the end of 2008.
While my views regarding the importance of the reform effort have not changed, and while I remain concerned about unrepentant politicians simply waiting out the interim government and giving lip service to reform, I understand that the uncertainty regarding the timing of elections does have a cost.
This includes its impact on the economy, where potential investors may be waiting for further clarity before making commitments.
The uncertainty about the interim government’s tenure also complicates its international engagement, as global partners understandably wonder how much they should invest in developing relations with the incumbent.
Within the Bangladeshi political scene, there are also questions about the degree of public support that the Interim Government enjoys.
Some recent polls indicate that the public broadly supports the interim government and wants to see reforms take place before elections.
Given the immature status of polling in Bangladesh, however, these are not universally seen as a reliable indicator of the interim government’s support.
Meanwhile, there are widespread assumptions about the strength of various political actors, to include the students who led the July revolution, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the Jamaat e Islami, and even the Awami League.
There are also questions about the loyalty of the administration and whether and when the government might be technically capable of holding free and fair elections.
With all of this in mind, one possibility that merits further discussion is the potential value of holding a referendum to gauge public support for the interim government’s reform efforts and determine when Bangladesh’s citizens think national elections should be held.
This is not a new idea, but I now believe it deserves a fresh look. In addition to obtaining information about the level of support for reforms, a referendum would also provide an opportunity to test drive the electoral machinery under the recently appointed Election Commission before the all-important national polls.
A logical time for such a referendum would be after the reform commissions formed by the interim government have reported back and provided their recommendations for their specific areas.
Once the government has digested these recommendations and held consultations with other stakeholders, it should be possible to provide the voting public with a set of options for what reforms could take place in a given amount of time.
The public’s position on these reforms would also allow the political parties to take this into account as they think about their electoral and governing platforms.
For the interim government, a clear sense of the degree to which the public supports their efforts would also provide them a way to determine how and when to exit the scene.
Bangladesh’s international friends, in both the public and private sector, should welcome the clarity that a referendum would provide, both in terms of the level of popular support for reforms but also on the timing of elections and a transition to a popularly chosen government.
These foreign friends might also be convinced to provide financial and technical support for the referendum, recognizing that these investments would also pay dividends during future general elections.
Skeptics will likely point out that previous unelected governments in Bangladesh and elsewhere have organized sham referendums in order to validate their rule and provide an excuse for them to remain in power.
While this is a valid concern in other situations, in today’s Bangladesh it is mitigated by the realization that the current government has consistently and convincingly maintained that it does not want to stay indefinitely.
The interim government also realizes that its legitimacy and domestic and international support stems from the belief that it represents a break from the past. Organizing a sham referendum would prove the interim government’s critics right and tarnish the image of all those involved in its formation.
It is not the role of outsiders, like me, to determine Bangladesh’s future.
That said, sometimes our friends can play a helpful role in making suggestions for us to act upon. It is in this spirit that I put forward this proposal and hope that it generates further discussion.
If there is a consensus on the value of a referendum, then there would be plenty of details to hash out, to include its timing and the question (or questions) that voters would be asked.
If it decides to hold a referendum, the Interim Government will need to explain clearly to the people why it has taken this step, what it hopes it will accomplish, why their participation matters and provide assurances that they will abide by the results.
Not only must the referendum itself be free and fair, but all interested parties must be allowed to campaign for and against the questions in the pre-election period.
This suggestion is not a panacea, but I believe it could be another step towards building a new Bangladesh.
