Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus's support for "Yes" vote in referendum is consistent with the reformist mandate of the interim government and the country's urgent need for institutional renewal, an official note asserts.
"It is also established international democratic practice, and transparency and accountability to the electorate," the government said in a statement Sunday.
The statement was issued in response to
'concerns that the Interim Government and Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus's open support for Yes vote in Bangladesh's forthcoming referendum on institutional reforms may be inconsistent with the expectations of an interim administration'.
"These concerns deserve respectful consideration. However, when assessed in light of Bangladesh's specific political context, the mandate of the interim government, and comparative international practice, such criticism does not withstand close scrutiny."
In Bangladesh's current transitional time, silence would not represent neutrality, it would represent a failure of leadership, the statement says while defending the government stance.
"The Interim government's mandate Is Reform, Not Procedural Minimalism.
Bangladesh's interim government was not constituted merely to administer routine state functions or to act as a passive electoral caretaker. It emerged from an acute governance and legitimacy crisis, marked by sustained public protest, institutional breakdown, and a collapse of confidence in political processes," the government note reminds.
"Its mandate -- understood domestically and communicated clearly to international partners -- has been to stabilize the state, restore democratic credibility, and deliver a credible framework of reforms before returning authority to an elected government."
The rebuttal mentions that Professor Yunus, as Chief Adviser, has spent the past eighteen months leading an unprecedented process of consultation across political parties, civil society, professional groups, and youth constituencies. The reform package now before the electorate is the product of that process. To suggest that he should now refrain from advocating for these reforms is to "misunderstand the very purpose of the interim arrangement".
An interim authority entrusted with reform cannot plausibly be expected to disown that reform at the moment of democratic decision. It says that the ongoing advocacy for the 'Yes' vote is compatible with democratic choice as international democratic practice does not require heads of government -- interim or otherwise -- to adopt a posture of studied indifference toward major constitutional or institutional change.
On the contrary, democratic systems routinely expect leaders to argue publicly for the policies and reforms they believe serve national interest, while leaving the final decision to voters.
mirmostafiz@yahoo.com
