Myth: “Boycott is the strongest political response”
A boycott is not always the strongest strategy. According to the CEC, turnout reached 70.98% – the 50% threshold was exceeded. 87.15% voted in favor. The Constitution was adopted.
Why boycott can seem attractive
For some citizens, boycott expresses a refusal to recognize or legitimize the process. This may feel like a morally or politically strong stance, especially where trust is low.
The practical weakness of boycott
In a referendum, boycott usually does not translate into a direct substantive position. It does not clearly show:
- which norm you oppose
- whether you reject the whole project
- what alternative you support
Why participation has more direct effect
Participation allows a citizen to:
- vote in favor
- vote against
- influence the numerical result directly
- be counted in the official outcome
Boycott, by contrast, often affects the process only indirectly.
When boycott could have mattered
Boycott would only have been mechanically effective if turnout had fallen below 50% – in that case the referendum would have been declared invalid. According to the CEC, as of 18:00, turnout is 70.98% (8,845,280 citizens received ballots) – the 50% threshold has been exceeded.
Main idea
Boycott may be a political gesture, but voting is the clearest way to affect the formal result of a referendum.
Key facts
- Boycott does not count as a direct "no" vote – the protocol records only turnout and votes
- Participation is the clearest way to affect the official result
- Boycott may have symbolic political meaning but weaker formal effect
- According to the CEC, as of 18:00, 2026 turnout is 70.98% – the 50% threshold has been exceeded
- In referendum mechanics, voting is the more direct instrument