A nationwide civic pulse check finds older, rural, and low-education voters are most likely to be under-informed about the referendum and July Charter, while voters worry about disruption and result acceptance remain high.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bangladesh is entering a decisive electoral moment shaped by the July movement and it\u2019s taking place alongside a referendum, widening the stakes beyond party competition to include institutional reform choices, voter inclusion, and the credibility of outcomes. A new national public perception survey suggests that many citizens want to participate, but are doing so with significant knowledge gaps and a persistent sense of uncertainty about what happens after results are declared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The survey was conducted by the Institute of Informatics and Development (IID) and its youth platform Youth for Policy (YfP) as a non-partisan \u201cpulse check\u201d on whether people feel informed enough to make choices, included and safe enough to participate, and confident enough in democratic fairness to accept outcomes. Data were collected on 6\u20137 February 2026 from 9,892 eligible voters across all eight divisions through a stratified coverage plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The referendum: One YES\/NO choice that covers multiple confusing reform themes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The referendum ballot asks voters to mark only one box\u2014YES or NO\u2014yet the question bundles several reform themes and links them to the July Charter and commission\/reform proposals. In practical terms, a single YES\/NO is being asked to cover multiple commitments at once. The survey indicates a predictable risk: many voters have limited exposure to the referenced documents and therefore do not feel confident about what a YES or NO would mean in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Informed: Knowledge gaps are large, and they hit older, rural, and low-education voters hardest<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Only 37.2%<\/strong> nationally say they know what is in the July Charter. This topline hides deep inequality. Among voters aged 35+<\/strong>, only 23.2%<\/strong> say they know, compared with 45.7%<\/strong> among voters aged 18\u201335<\/strong>. Rural respondents are also less likely to say they know (32.4%<\/strong>) than urban respondents (41.4%<\/strong>). Among respondents with no formal education<\/strong>, just 8.4%<\/strong> say they know what is in the Charter, while 77.2%<\/strong> say \u201cno\u201d or \u201cdon\u2019t know.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Awareness is weak even on specific reform content. For example, only 43.1%<\/strong> say they know what changes are proposed on fundamental rights, while low awareness (no + don\u2019t know) is 55.3%<\/strong> nationally and rises sharply among older and low-education respondents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The clearest pre-election inclusion risk emerges when knowledge is tested at the ballot level. Nationally, 72.4%<\/strong> say they can easily read and understand the referendum ballot text. Among voters aged 35+<\/strong>, that falls to 57.4%<\/strong>. Among voters with no formal education<\/strong>, it falls to 26.6%<\/strong>. In other words, the people most vulnerable to exclusion are least confident about reading and understanding the referendum ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many citizens also report that they do not know what would happen if \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d wins. For \u201cyes wins,\u201d low awareness is 29.6%<\/strong> nationally, rising to 42.7%<\/strong> among voters aged 35+<\/strong> and 62.2%<\/strong> among voters with no formal education<\/strong>. For \u201cno wins,\u201d low awareness is 33.6%<\/strong> nationally and rises to 47.8%<\/strong> among 35+<\/strong> and 67.5%<\/strong> among no-education voters. Rural respondents are consistently less likely than urban respondents to say they understand these consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inclusive: Many do not know their preferred party\u2019s stance, and civic space is not equal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When asked whether their preferred political party has signed the July Charter, only 43.0%<\/strong> say \u201cyes.\u201d A large share says \u201cdon\u2019t know\u201d (37.4%<\/strong>), and another 12.5%<\/strong> prefer not to answer. Uncertainty is highest among voters aged 35+<\/strong> (48.3%<\/strong> \u201cdon\u2019t know\u201d), rural respondents (41.7%<\/strong> \u201cdon\u2019t know\u201d), and voters with no formal education<\/strong> (63.4%<\/strong> \u201cdon\u2019t know\u201d). This suggests many citizens are being asked to decide on reforms without clear knowledge of where their own preferred side stands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inclusion also depends on civic space. While 63.0%<\/strong> say they can speak openly about elections, 20.2%<\/strong> say they cannot. The Adibasi\/ethnic subgroup reports particularly constrained openness (46.7%<\/strong> say they cannot speak openly). The pattern remains a warning sign that fear and self-censorship are not evenly distributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anxious: Fear of disruption is widespread, and result acceptance remains uncertain<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A majority of respondents (55.0%<\/strong>) say election-day problems or insecurity could prevent people from voting. This matters because perceived risk can suppress turnout and amplify rumours, especially where information is already limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On post-poll stability, the survey\u2019s most strategic warning concerns result acceptance. Only 51.0%<\/strong> believe losing sides will accept election results fully or partially. Meanwhile, 35.8%<\/strong> are uncertain or unwilling to answer, with uncertainty particularly high among women and among voters with no formal education. In a transition period, this \u201cuncertainty zone\u201d can become fertile ground for competing narratives and contested legitimacy after results are declared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Public perception of government neutrality during election is marked by uncertainty: 47.9%<\/strong> of respondents say the government is neutral on voting, 11.3%<\/strong> say it is not, while 33.7%<\/strong> say they \u201cdon\u2019t know\u201d if the government is neutral (rising to 39.7%<\/strong> among women), and 7.1%<\/strong> prefer not to answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hope: Most still expect to vote safely, and inclusion aspirations remain strong<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Alongside anxieties, the survey records clear participation hope. A combined 86.4%<\/strong> say they feel safe going to the polling station (64.0%<\/strong> \u201cyes\u201d + 22.4%<\/strong> \u201csomewhat\u201d). A combined 82.5%<\/strong> expect religious or ethnic minorities can vote without fear in their area (69.7%<\/strong> \u201cyes\u201d + 12.8%<\/strong> \u201csomewhat\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n On women\u2019s voting agency, 68.0%<\/strong> say women vote by their own judgement. At the same time, 21.1%<\/strong> believe women vote according to a husband\u2019s or father\u2019s preference, indicating that household influence remains important in many communities even where women\u2019s participation is recognized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What this means<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A reform mandate without public understanding risks undermining the July Movement\u2019s promise<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The July Movement put anti-discrimination and reform at the centre of public expectations, yet the survey indicates the election\u2013referendum is unfolding with significant information inequality. Knowledge gaps are widest among voters aged 35+, rural communities, and people with little or no formal education, including limited understanding of what the July Charter contains and what a \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d outcome would mean. This suggests the interim period prioritised closed-door reform bargaining over public engagement at the scale required for an informed, inclusive referendum. The next government should treat this as a legitimacy issue and launch a time-bound, non-partisan public information effort in plain language, prioritising the least-informed groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bundled ballot design creates ambiguity that can fuel post-election conflict<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Field commentary highlights a plausible confusion: the referendum package includes an upper-house proposal, while another clause links implementation to political parties\u2019 commitments\u2014raising questions about what prevails if a winning party opposes the upper house. When multiple reforms are bundled into one yes\/no vote, internal tensions can become post-poll dispute triggers. Clear, authoritative pre-election guidance on how provisions interact would reduce interpretive conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n