Democracy is a broad term used for participatory governments elected by the people. Various forms of democracies are functioning in different countries of the world. However, there is no single type of a successful democratic model which can be regarded as the best system of
government. Nations have to modify and adapt their democratic systems in accordance with their suitability and particular needs.
An election is like a census of opinion which determines how a country should be governed. Only if an Assembly represents the full diversity of opinion within a country can its decisions be regarded as legitimate. A true democracy must ensure that all Political groups within the country get fair representation according to their share in the population.
Pakistan has a federal parliamentary system of government. The parliament consists of two houses, the Senate and the National Assembly. The Senators are elected by the members of the Provincial Assemblies, whereas the members on general seats in the National Assembly are elected by the people.
The National Assembly of Pakistan has 342 seats. There are 272, single member, territorial, electoral constituencies, demarcated on the basis of population. These are known as the general seats and the members on these seats are elected by direct votes cast by the registered voters within the constituencies on the basis of adult franchise.
The remaining 70 seats are reserved for women (60 seats) and non Muslims (10 seats). These seats are allocated on the basis of total number of general seats secured by each political party in the National Assembly. Members are nominated by their respective parties against the allocated reserved seats.
Thus a political party in Pakistan must win at least 5 general seats in the National Assembly in order for it to get one reserved seat for women. Similarly, 27 general seats must be won to secure one reserved seat for non Muslims.
However, if these seats were allocated on the basis of popular votes secured by each political party in the general elections, a party not winning any general seats would still have the chance of getting representation in the National Assembly.
Our electoral system only caters for a popular opinion group which has concentration within a territorial area or constituency. Thus an entire political party may not get even a single seat in the National Assembly even though it may have secured a large number of aggregate votes scattered across the country. On the other hand, an individual getting much fewer votes may end up in the National Assembly because his votes are confined within one territorial constituency.
Assume a multi party election held in 272 constituencies where the average votes cast per constituency are one hundred thousand and the total votes polled are 27 million. Assume that one political party gets ten thousand votes in each constituency, thus getting an aggregate of about 3 million votes. However this party is unable to get even a single seat in the parliament as its 3 million voters are scattered across 272 constituencies and there is not enough concentration of voters in any one constituency to win a general seat. On the other hand, an individual running independently may win his seat by securing fifty thousand votes (or even less), when a political group of 3 million people is going unrepresented.
All voters deserve representation and all political groups in the society deserve to be represented in the legislature in proportion to their strength within the electorate. In other words, everyone should have the right to fair representation. It is important to devise a democratic system which ensures the inclusion of all political groups in the country. Every political party, no matter how small, must get representation in the parliament, in proportion to its size in the electorate.
The combination of constituency based electoral system, plus reserved seats based upon popular votes secured by the political parties, would ensure a truly representative legislature which includes all opinion groups within the society. Resultantly, the Parliament would become more legitimate, and would enjoy full confidence of the people.
National Assembly is a directly elected body. It is only fair to ask that the reserved seats in this august house should also be elected in a more direct manner. Thus the reserved seats for women should be allocated on the basis of women’s votes secured by each political party. Similar arrangement should be made for allocation of seats reserved for minorities.
The major concern for every Parliamentarian is to be re-elected. Even the party leaders are mostly concerned about the demands of their constituents instead of focusing on the national issues. This is because of our current system of elections. If the reserved seats were allocated to the political parties on the basis of aggregate votes secured throughout the country, then party leaders would be able to make it to the National Assembly without having to worry about their constituencies. Thus the focus of the political leadership would remain on national politics, and not be narrowed down only to their constituencies.
It is therefore suggested that the prevailing system of elections in Pakistan should be amended so that reserved seats in the National and the Provincial Assemblies are allocated on the basis of total number of aggregate votes secured by each political party in the general elections.
It is also suggested that provision should be made to create reserved seats of general category, in addition to seats reserved for women and non-Muslims. Thus every political party would be most fairly represented in the National and the Provincial Assemblies.
The writer is former District Nazim Khanewal and special assistant to the Prime Minister
Point- Counterpoint
Reserved MP seats for women is a good, progressive idea
Nafisa Shah
Women leaders of Pakistan have, in no small measure, shaped the political agenda of the country, especially in strengthening political systems and democracy. Madar-e-Millat Fatima Jinnah, Shaheed Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto and Begum Nusrat Bhutto, have an iconic stature in the political history of this country, primarily because they tread on the path that no male politician would, by taking the military dictators head on. When these great women took principled positions, the entire nation, men and women equally, followed them, and their being women did not in any way obstruct these great political movements that they led.
More recently women’s appointment to key public offices such as the Speaker, Foreign Minister and Information Minister, and equally importantly, the performance of women members in the National Assembly seems to have placed women at the centre stage in the usually male world of Pakistani politics.
But are they really?
Although a significant increase in visibility and presence of women in top positions in government and legislative bodies has been a positive sign, questions abound on whether these measures are able to mainstream and create a level playing field for women in public and political space generally, as socio-cultural barriers continue to restrict women’s participation.
Quotas or reservations for women have been instrumental in increasing the numbers of women in political and legislative forums all over the world. Today 19 percent of the public representatives in the parliaments across the world are women, as a result of the instrument of quotas.
In Pakistan, Begum Jahan Ara Shah and Shaista Ikramullah were pioneer members of the Constituent Assembly, and thereafter reservations for women, no matter how small a number, have been a consistent principle in the legislative process. Women’s seats were agreed on in the first Constitution of 1956 at 3 percent , and women were elected on reserved seats through an indirect election. The revised constitutions of 1962 and 1973 also provided reservation of seats for women at 2.75 percent, and 5 percent respectively in the national and provincial assemblies. In 1985, the number of reserved seats for women in the Pakistan National Assembly was raised to 20 ( or 10 percent) for the period of 10 years or three general election whichever came earlier. When this provision lapsed, however, hardly any woman could make it to the parliament in the 90s. In 2002 elections, this was revived and improved significantly, and 60 seats were reserved for women in the National Assembly and 17 in the Senate, and these quotas have subsequently been made part of the constitution in the 18th Amendment in Article 51.
Women candidates on quota seats are elected through proportional representation system, whereby political parties produce lists of candidates on the basis of the total number, as opposed to general seats, where party candidates contest election in constituencies. However, this does not bar women from contesting on general seats and at least 19 women have returned as winners from their constituencies in the National Assembly thereby raising the percentage to 22, a little over one-fifth of the House.
Quotas are supported generally as an entry point for women in politics. “There are very strong, rigid social, cultural and economic barriers to women’s participation in politics, which the quotas have recognized and provided legitimate and appropriate ways to bring women up in politics,” says MNA and special assistant to the Prime Minister, Shehnaz Wazir Ali. Some women parliamentarians consider these as a basic democratic intervention which has given women a voice. And women have found a voice through these reservations: “ I remember when women first came on reserved seats, our male colleagues used to worry and say, ye kiya bolen gi (What would they speak on?). Today, women are speaking up, and speaking on issues that are generally not done.” For some women parliamentarians, these have provided an opportunity for women outside the structured entrenched political class to enter politics and have as a result shaken the status quo. Donya Aziz says: “I don’t belong to a political family, and there was no way I could have entered the assembly had it not been for the reserved seats.”
It is argued that increased representation of women through quotas has not only assured a presence and a visibility, it has had a direct, tangible outcome, especially in the improvement in the work of legislative bodies. Indeed the present National Assembly will, in due course of time, be recognised for its exemplary legislation on rights based agenda, particularly women rights. Aside from clear domination in running the business of the House, whether it is raising questions, moving motions, or private members bills, women have introduced important legislation: the Anti Women Practises law, the Harassment Against Women at Workplace law, Acid Crime law, are some instances.
Even though women’s space in parliamentary forums seems to be firmly placed, the very fact that women are not directly elected from constituencies, has been a point of contest. Male members of the parliament have at times stated their discomfort with these reservations and members on general seats do not want that women on reserved seats are given the same benefits, especially funds for constituency development as they do. On the other hand, women themselves consider that this is often used to discriminate against them, in allocation of cabinet portfolios, development funds, etc as Yasmeen Rehman adds. “Women have worked hard and performed, and something still seems missing as there is still a sense of discrimination against women on these seats.”
Despite the gains, the key issue is how women would take the next step of mainstreaming women in politics? If quota provisions are removed, would women again become invisible?
“When a critical mass of women do enter, then the next step is to open the next set of gates,” says Shehnaz Wazir Ali. Waiting on the next set of gates is one important gatekeeper - the political party - which, in the final analysis, holds the key to mainstreaming women in politics. This is because, to quote academic Lovenduski: “Parties are crucial gatekeepers to government office, one of the main channels of political mobilization in a society and a major source of public policy.” That is where the change needs to come, with regard to increasing numbers, presence, visibility and voice to women. These changes are crucial if quotas for women are to be met in a way that brings politically active women into public institutions. Although political parties like the PPP have brought a significant number of women in important offices, generally the parties have made little effort to encourage women’s participation in politics at all levels. One way that political parties have responded to this concern about the lack of women in both their membership and organization is to constitute women’s wings of political parties. However, women’s wings of political parties are viewed with a mixed response. Some consider them as important spaces allowing women to participate in politics, but others view them as ghettos for women. ANP, for example, vehemently opposes a separate womens wing, and has announced a 33 percent quota for women on all party councils. The PPP, however, has compromised with women both represented in what is called the mother wing, and in the women’s wing. It is now felt that there is a need to explore how political parties can be sensitized to the issues of representation of women, and to debate whether the present form of indirect representation provided to women is strengthening women’s participation in politics on a sustainable basis. It is feared that quotas may make the political parties complacent and unwilling to provide the party platform to women to contest direct elections
Political empowerment will only materialize if parties enable more women in party offices, and also to contest elections. In countries such as Britain the affirmative action of quotas has happened at the level of political parties, where some political parties have given as many 33 percent of the party tickets to women, the Labour Party of Britain being an example. The Nordic countries’ impressive women’s representation is due both to socio-economic changes, and voluntary political quotas by political parties.
Quotas for women in political parties have been discussed in Pakistan but are as yet to be introduced. This idea has now been carried forward by the Women’s Parlaimentary Caucus (WPC), which has tried to build consensus among the parties to agree on a minimum quota of 10 percent for awarding tickets to women on winnable seats and a 33 percent quota on all party committees and councils.
As a result of this consensus, the WPC has moved a bill to amend the Political Parties Act 2002 and the Representation of Peoples Act 1976. Gender mainstreaming needs to be transformative, and while quotas are essential to making women visible, institutional changes in political parties for electoral politics, are the final guarantee to ensuring women’s political empowerment. And finally, the emphasis on gender mainstreaming is not only about political and social justice, it is about good, effective and responsive politics. As British Conservative MP Theresa May once said: “We are not trying to (get more women into parliament) to be politically correct, as some people complain, but to be politically effective. Women make good MPs.”
The writer is a parliamentarian and former district nazim.
No, it isn’t
Hassan Belal Zaidi
How quotas for women in legislatures don’t accomplish what they should representation is the key to any democratic system of government. The idea that a small number of individuals can, collectively, embody the ‘will of the people’ and represent their constituents in the highest halls of decision-making is rooted in the assumption that those who reach these halls are, in fact, chosen by a much larger number of people in the first place. But when it comes to minorities, whether they are defined on gender, religious or ethnic grounds, positive discrimination and affirmative action is now applied. This means that in order to counter an inherent bias against these normally ‘under-represented groups’, steps are taken to inject such groups into the representative assemblies and legislatures, so their composition becomes more representative of society at large.
In theory, at least. Quotas, or the allocation of specific seats for women, although technically in place since the very first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, proved to be quite ineffective in mainstreaming women’s issues when it came to policymaking at the highest level. From 1947 to 1973, the quota for women in parliament fluctuated between two to five percent. This meant that no more than six to eight women were present in the assemblies at any given time in this period. When the assembly was formed following the 1977 elections, it featured the first woman deputy speaker in the country’s history and included 11 members on reserved seats. This was still nowhere near proportionate to the percentage of women in the population, but it was considered a step in the right direction.
This number went up to 20 in the next elections of 1985. Things did not change much after that, until the advent of General Pervez Musharraf, who increased the number of reserved seats for women in the National Assembly to nearly 60 and Senate seats to 17. It was these years that also saw the rise of women in constituency-based politics and in the elections of 2002, 13 women won general seats. The trend has been consistent and we currently have 16 woman legislators on general seats, alongside the 60 on reserved seats.
While the numbers may sound impressive, the effectiveness of their presence is a large question mark. Today, while Pakistan can boast an impressive number of women as legislators and in other key decision-making positions, it is obvious that this does not directly correlate to the betterment of the status of women in society. Granted, that social change and behavioral changes do not occur overnight, but still, there should be a better way to promote the mainstreaming of women into politics. A way that allows politicians to be groomed, like a handful have been before them. Women such as Fatima Jinnah and Benazir Bhutto.
Before arguing against the permanent adoption of a quota for women legislators in the federal and provincial assemblies, an important clarification must be made: the principle of women’s representation at the highest levels is not being debated. Indeed, the case that is being made envisions a greater role for women in government without the ‘handicap’ of reserved seats.
Disingenuous handicap
While the mechanism for the selection of women members on reserved seats is explained quite succinctly elsewhere in this publication, it is the consequences of that methodology that contribute to the disdain with which most such members are treated in the House. Many parliamentarians have accused their male counterparts of treating them as “half members” and insisting that the development funds allocated to them be smaller than those allotted to members who have come to the House via general seats. This has created bad blood between women members and their male counterparts too many times, especially in the Punjab and Sindh assemblies. And even in the federal legislature, members such as Kashmala Tariq have constantly complained of discriminatory treatment.
If one deconstructs the role of women parliamentarians in pushing for legislation such as the Acid Control and Acid Prevention Act 2011, Sexual Harassment at Work Place Act 2010, Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Act 2011 and Women in Distress and Detention Act 2011, it is painfully obvious that these were heavily watered down by the alliance between the mullah lobby and the right-wingers in the parliament. Most of the opponents of these bills are quite guilty of not taking the women seriously. But the irony is that if the requisite pressure is applied, elected women members from the ruling coalition can exert considerable influence on these nay-sayers. As with all other political maneuverings, it will take a great deal of tact and guile to get such things through the parliament. But it is indeed sad that nearly none of the women in the Assembly, not even Sherry Rehman, fully grasp this aspect. Which is why the Domestic Violence Bill is still just a bill, despite having first been tabled in 2009.
Leadership gap
An irony of the quota system is that nearly all women selected by political parties to represent them in the parliament are associated with one political dynasty or the other. Unlike the Senate, where members are chosen in a relatively meritocratic manner, there is no such convention for those chosen to represent parties in the parliament. This yields quite a motley mix of members, most of whom have no political constituency or background per se.
The exceptions that prove the rule, such as Sherry Rehman and Farahnaz Isphani, are there in almost every parliament and have actually made substantial contributions with regards to women-specific legislation in the past. However, all of these ‘heavyweights’ can just as easily win on ‘safe seats’ in a constituency of their choosing.
The prime example that automatically springs to mind is that of the late great Benazir Bhutto, who rose to political prominence not because she was a woman, but because she was a Bhutto. She too had to learn the ropes of government and had her share of good and bad decisions as well. But the one thing she succeeded in doing was to demonstrate how effectively a woman, if she is politically groomed in the manner that Bhutto was (a political education at the side of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is as good as it gets), can lead the country through the best of times as well as the worst of times. In her case, after a certain point in time, it was never about her being a woman.
This is especially true of her time in exile in the Nawaz-Musharraf years. Her influence over the political landscape of Pakistan – while in exile – is matched only by Nawaz Sharif and now to a certain extent, Altaf Hussain. Granted that Benazir was, as her name suggests, ‘matchless’, but that does not mean that we cannot or will not have more leaders in her image ever again.
A representative problem
There is a stark difference between dynastic and feudal/hereditary politics. While Benazir Bhutto was an ideal example of a well-groomed leader of national vision, examples abound of women who, while hailing from influential and politically active households, are merely pushed into the limelight to replace a disqualified or deceased relative. Such women are also from similarly privileged backgrounds and quite disconnected from constituency problems and politics.
Many, even our current Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, have had to make the transition into politics because the principal political player in the family, her father in this case, was no longer eligible for a seat. While Ms Khar came into the House on a general seat this time around and has managed to bag a prize portfolio in the Cabinet, it must be said that even she does not represent the political maturity and prudence demonstrated by other ‘political powerhouses’, such as Samina Khalid Ghurki or Tehmina Daultana or Faryal Talpur.
Nuisance value
Then we come to the so-called “centerpieces” of the parliamentary circus. These members have been relegated to being distractions and are employed by their parties when they need to throw the opposition (or the government, as the case may be) off their track. MPAs Seemal Kamran and Samina Khawar Hayat of Punjab and MPAs Shazia Marri and Marvi Rashidi of Sindh have brought much notoriety to both legislatures.
The former are known House trolls, who are quite adept at breaking lotas on-air and lampooning their opponents on the floor and outside the House. Law Minister Rana Sanaullah and Speaker Rana Iqbal are often at a loss whenever both decide to go on a rampage, unable to reprimand or respond as effectively to the women as they may to the men. Ask poor Chaudhry Ghafoor, former Prisons Minister and class clown for the PML(N). The gaffe prone legislator was such a favorite target of both women that he has had to leave the House on many occasions after facing constant badgering.
Marri and Marvi have also been in the news, for fighting over petty things such as the amount of make-up one wears and the kind of English language skills the other has, rather than concentrating on House business. Even here, the honourable Nisar Khuhro has done his best to keep the two out of trouble, but they are able to raise their voices and defy the speaker with great ease.
What is also unfortunate in such cases is the media’s treatment of such women. On the screens of Geo, Express, ARY, SAMAA and the like, such legislators are reduced to mere characters, whether it be through ‘creative reporting’ (also referred to in industry circles as ‘Jhankar Studio Packaging’) or on talk shows. The archetype of the woman who is interesting not because of her contribution to the business of the House, but rather because of her ability to distract from it, is what is most damaging. Whether it be playing ‘lota football’ outside assembly doors or the badgering of fellow members or the parade of the latest lawn prints, such women only serve to further the stereotypes and do not contribute towards the greater goal of bringing women into the mainstream of political discourse and policymaking.
There are also those, such as YouTube heroine and emotional MQM representative Fauzia Ejaz Khan, who shot to fame after a charged outburst at fellow members and Deputy Speaker Faisal Kundi for not debating “the real issues”. Her tirade is now legendary, thanks to the social media. While her credentials as an MNA are satisfactory (given the keen interest the MQM takes in the problems of women), her two cents in each session she has had a chance to speak in have generally been incendiary yet rhetorical. With these ‘proactive’ legislators, the question always is of initiatives and the introduction of private members’ legislation. Most are found wanting on both counts and have very bad truancy records.
Playing the game
It is obvious that having 70-odd women in a ‘boys club’ parliament is not having an effect. The primary alternative, then, would be to abolish the quotas and have women contest elections on the same platforms as their male counterparts. This, for obvious reasons, won’t work in isolation. But what is certain is the need for Pakistan to increase the amount of political power and sway that women hold. This can only be accomplished if women are represented in the assemblies in proportion to their numbers in the overall populations. While this will not be achieved under the status quo, ever, and the perpetuation of the quota system will merely ingrain the dichotomy further, unique measures, conducive to the social and religious sensitivities that prevail here, can help. We must explore the possibility of having a separate electorate for women, along the lines adopted by many countries that gained independence during the latter half of the 20th century. But it feels like there hasn’t been a strong enough effort on the part of the women lawmakers themselves to push for these policies. This, however, can be put down to the inherently undemocratic structure of political parties that do not prioritize such issues within the agenda of legislation. While the ruling PPP has accomplished a lot, the cause is not yet exhausted and there is still a long way to go before women can actually become representative lawmakers, rather than just names on a list.
What is missing from the status quo is a genuine effort to allow women to become a political power. Political parties need to demonstrate a greater commitment towards promoting women’s involvement in the political sphere. As military interludes have damaged democracy in general, so too have they been detrimental to the development and grooming of women leaders.
Local government systems which included the provision for women councilors and female Nazims and Naib Nazims were a step in the right direction, but again, exploited by the parties in power for their own benefit. If women are given the right to vote in a parallel system, whereby they can cast their ballots exclusively for women leaders rather than voting along familial party lines, it would be a great step up for their cause.
The writer is a former journalist who works for the development sector.
