Chief Advisor’s Office says campaigning for ‘yes’ vote is consistent with democratic ideals

It says that expecting the government to remain neutral on the reforms it helped shape is “unrealistic”

The Chief Advisor’s Office (CAO) has rejected criticism of the interim government and its chief advisor for publicly supporting a “yes” vote in the upcoming referendum on the implementation of the July National Charter 2025.

It described the objections as “baseless” and detached from Bangladesh’s political reality and international democratic practice.

In a statement issued on Sunday, the CAO said the interim government’s position does not violate administrative impartiality. Rather, it reflects the responsibilities and mandate under which the government was formed.

“Silence in this critical time for Bangladesh is not a symbol of impartiality; rather, it reveals the lack of responsible leadership,” the statement said.

The CAO noted that the interim government was not constituted merely to manage routine state affairs or to oversee a fair election.

It emerged, the statement said, from a mass uprising against years of misrule, constitutional crisis, erosion of public trust, and institutional decay.

“The main responsibility of this government is to stabilise the state, restore democratic credibility, and create an acceptable framework for necessary reforms before handing over power to an elected government,” it said.

According to the statement, the reform package now before voters is the result of sustained consultations over the past 18 months with political parties, civil society members, professionals, and young people. In that context, it said, expecting the government to remain neutral on the reforms it helped shape is unrealistic.

“It is unrealistic to expect that an interim government formed with the responsibility of reforming will distance itself from those reforms at the moment of democratic decision,” the statement said.

The CAO further argued that international democratic norms do not require heads of government to remain silent on major constitutional or institutional questions. On the contrary, it said, democratic leadership entails advocating reforms deemed necessary for the national interest.

“The key question of democratic legitimacy is not whether leaders have taken a stand,” the statement said.

“Rather, whether voters are free to reject that stand, whether the opposition is able to campaign openly, whether the entire process is transparent and credible.”

It claimed that all these conditions are currently met.

The statement said the referendum is not an abstract policy exercise but a response to prolonged governance failures that weakened state institutions and triggered deep crises through uncontested elections and the politicisation of regulatory bodies.

“For someone [Muhammad Yunus] who has himself identified the problem of reform and led the way in building consensus to solve it, it would be inconsistent and irresponsible to remain silent now,” it said.

Citing international precedents, the office noted that heads of government in many countries have taken public positions during referendums on major national changes. It referred to referendums held in the United Kingdom in 2016, Scotland in 2014, Turkey in 2017, Kyrgyzstan in 2016, and France in 1962.

“The legitimacy of a referendum does not depend on the silence of leaders; it depends on the opportunity for voters to freely express their opinions for or against,” the statement said.

It also emphasised that, unlike in many other cases, the outcome of Bangladesh’s reform referendum carries no electoral benefit for the interim government. The chief advisor and his colleagues, it said, are not seeking to extend their tenure or gain personal political advantage.

Responsibility for implementing the reforms, whether approved or rejected, will rest with the next elected government, the statement added.

Addressing concerns about campaign activities at the district level, the office said these efforts are aimed at explaining the content and significance of the reforms to prevent misinformation and public confusion.

“The government’s presence in the public debate does not suppress dissent; rather, it ensures that citizens can make informed decisions about reforms,” it said.

The statement concluded by warning that hesitation, not engagement, poses the greater risk at this juncture.

“The greatest risk for Bangladesh at this critical time is not in support, but in hesitation and silence,” it said.

Summarising the chief advisor’s position, the office said his support for a “yes” vote is consistent with the interim government’s reform mandate, its commitment to institutional restructuring, established international democratic practices, and the principles of transparency and accountability.

“Ultimately, the decision belongs to the people of Bangladesh. This is the guarantee of democracy,” the statement said.

“Leadership does not take away that decision; rather, it helps to make it clear and meaningful.”