‘Vote? What vote?’ Ignorance reigns in referendum black hole

Many voters remain unaware they will also be asked to decide whether they support the proposal to give unelected senators the power to help select the prime minister.

Even now, questions like “What is the referendum about?”, “When is the vote?” and “What issues are we voting on?” are being widely asked.

It seems that many of us still have little understanding of this crucial step for our nation’s future.

Given the fact that authorities are not distributing copies of the draft constitution to every household, the information gap should come as no surprise. Insufficient budget to publish and distribute enough copies, along with the difficulty many citizens would have in digesting the lengthy and technical document, were the reasons given.

Instead, authorities opted to distribute booklets summarising the draft and giving interpretations of its content by the charter writers themselves. As such, no one should expect its negative points to be highlighted.

While it’s true that the draft consists of more than 200 articles and uses legal terms that some might find difficult to understand, these are not good reasons to deny all households a copy. As voters we need full information of a supreme law we will all be living under if it passes the national vote. A full copy of the charter draft would also serve as a reference and invaluable source of debate, enabling citizens to cite accurately certain provisions to back arguments. With easy access to copies of the actual draft, we could also see for ourselves whether its content was being distorted by the junta or other groups.

Authorities have suggested that anyone interested can download an e-copy and print it out. But shouldn’t that be part of their duty as organisers of the referendum? And what of the many people across the country who still have no access to the Internet? 

The reality is that without a physical copy, voters are being deprived of their right to join the public debate on contentious issues surrounding the draft. Such debate should be free and open to all, not limited to those with Internet access and savvy. The proposed law would, after all, cover each and every one of us.

When news emerged recently of a fake copy in circulation that featured distorted content, people joked that they had not even see the real one.

Some saw it as a plot to limit public debate on the draft. If that allegation is true, the plot seems to have succeeded. 

With no physical copy of the draft constitution easily at hand, voters are unlikely to vote on the basis of its merits or demerits or in response to its actual content. Instead they will vote according to beliefs or emotions based on hearsay, political loyalties and other spurious sources. 

Much will depend on how effective the supporters and critics of the draft are in persuading the voters to believe them. 

[email protected]