Dr. Nuruzzaman Khan
Adelaide University, Australia
Women’s representation in South Asian legislatures has long rested on a familiar mechanism: reserved parliamentary seats. Pakistan and Bangladesh, sharing a common colonial and constitutional heritage, both adopted this model as a corrective to entrenched gender exclusion. Yet as a recent analysis in The Oniket Bulletin argues, numerical inclusion without democratic legitimacy does not translate into genuine political power (Parvin, N. “From Symbolism to Sovereignty: Reclaiming Women’s Democratic Power in Bangladesh’s Parliament,” The Oniket Bulletin, May 2026).
That argument, developed with reference to Bangladesh, offers a valuable lens for examining Pakistan’s parallel framework and for identifying reforms that could move both countries from symbolic inclusion toward substantive representation. This article is intended to initiate this discussion.
Bangladesh’s Constitutional Design
Article 65(3) of the Bangladesh Constitution allocates fifty reserved seats to women, filled not by direct popular vote but through proportional allocation among sitting Members of Parliament. As Parvin (2026) notes, this arrangement produces legislators who lack constituencies and therefore lack accountability to voters, leaving them dependent on party leadership for nomination and survival.
The Seventeenth Amendment of 2018 extended this system for twenty-five additional years, until 2043, turning what began as a temporary special measure into a long-term constitutional fixture. Reform is further constrained by Article 142, which requires a two thirds parliamentary majority for constitutional amendment, a threshold that structurally favors preservation of the status quo since both major parties benefit from the patronage value of appointment-based seats.
Pakistan’s Parallel Model
Pakistan’s framework mirrors this design in important respects. Under Article 51 of its Constitution, the National Assembly reserves sixty seats for women out of three hundred and forty-two total members, filled through a party list system based on proportional representation rather than direct election. Provincial assemblies follow a similar pattern under Article 106.
As with Bangladesh, reserved seat holders in Pakistan are nominated by party leadership and owe their political survival to internal party favor rather than to any electorate, reinforcing the same patron client dynamic that Parvin (2026) identifies as structurally limiting women’s influence on lawmaking and committee leadership. The Political Parties Order of 2002 additionally requires parties to allocate a minimum share of general seat tickets to women, though enforcement has remained weak and women candidates are frequently placed in constituencies considered unwinnable.
The 2024 general election exposed a further vulnerability unique to Pakistan’s system: reserved seats can become entangled in disputes over party status itself, as seen when the Supreme Court had to determine whether a major party qualified for allocation of reserved seats under Articles 51 and 106. This illustrates how, unlike Bangladesh’s more settled constitutional entrenchment, Pakistan’s reserved seat mechanism is additionally exposed to procedural and judicial uncertainty that can leave women’s representation hostage to broader political contestation.
Shared Structural Weaknesses
Both countries display what Parvin (2026) terms a paradox of protection: by channeling women into an appointment-based track, the system implicitly signals that women are unsuited to open electoral competition, an assumption belied by both nations’ histories of women winning the highest executive offices through direct elections. In neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh does the constitutional text include a sunset clause or mandatory review mechanism tied to measurable progress in women’s general seat electability, and judicial bodies in both jurisdictions have generally treated legislative composition as a matter of parliamentary discretion rather than a justiciable rights question.
Toward Structural Reform
Drawing on the reform agenda Parvin (2026) outlines for Bangladesh, several measures merit consideration across both jurisdictions. First, reserved seats should transition toward direct election, whether through women only constituencies, clustered geographic districts, or a dual ballot allowing voters to elect both a general representative and a women’s representative. Second, electoral law should mandate enforceable gender quotas within party nominations for general seats, addressing the root cause of underrepresentation, namely discriminatory candidate selection, rather than merely compensating for it after the fact.
Third, any continued reservation should include a constitutional sunset and periodic review clause tied to measurable benchmarks, ensuring temporary measures do not become permanent fixtures immune from reassessment. Comparative evidence from Rwanda’s high performing quota system and Sweden’s integration of gender parity into mainstream party competition, both cited in Parvin (2026)’s analysis, demonstrates that quotas succeed when they generate independent mandates rather than symbolic appointments.
For Pakistan and Bangladesh alike, genuine democratic inclusion will require moving beyond managed representation toward electoral mechanisms that give women legislators independent constituencies, direct accountability to voters, and durable influence over policymaking rather than provisional occupancy of allocated seats.
Reference:
