We have boundless aspirations and laments when it comes to women’s empowerment. There is also a sense of discomfort. Different groups have different intentions. This is reflected in their speeches, statements, manifestos, and conversations. It seems that men think even more about women than women themselves do. Many men lose sleep over how women should dress, move, speak, and think.
One issue has been under discussion for a long time—how to ensure women’s participation in decision-making at various levels of society. One group believes that female leadership is undesirable.
I am not addressing those who hold such beliefs, because belief does not lend itself to debate. However, there is doubt as to whether those who strongly advocate women’s participation in speech and writing truly believe in it. In this context, we can talk about politics.
Women’s participation in our country’s politics is low. There are economic, social, and cultural reasons behind this. The political arena is not a women-friendly environment. Of course, politics does not exist outside society. The way our society views women is reflected in the political sphere as well. Some may argue that two women led the country’s two largest parties for 45 years and governed as heads of government for 35 years—so how can it be said that female leadership is not accepted in the country? That is indeed an argument.
The question is, they are two individuals. They entered politics through familial succession in a moment of vacuum. Then they became leaders in their own right. But that cannot be considered a general rule.
So, after so many years of women’s leadership at the highest level of the state, has the social attitude toward women become positive? Perhaps to some extent, but in many cases, we are also seeing regression.
Even so, we have a constitution that guarantees equal rights and dignity for men and women. At the same time, many provisions of religious laws are also in force. As a result, a contradictory situation has emerged.
Our government has adopted the CEDAW convention on women’s empowerment and participation, albeit with reservations. Several clauses of the convention have still not been accepted. On this matter, there appears to be an unwritten understanding among the major mainstream political parties. When in power, they have ignored the issue.
The interim government led by Muhammad Yunus launched an aggressive push toward “state reform.” It formed several commissions, one of which was the Women’s Affairs Reform Commission. This commission worked hard and submitted a report. It sparked considerable uproar. In the end, however, no political party showed the courage to stand in support of the report. As a result, the commission’s report never materialised. The Yunus government had formed a committee by combining six commissions, but the Women’s Affairs Reform Commission was not included in it. The entire exercise turned into a stark waste and a source of disappointment.
In this country, people often block Shahbagh at the drop of a hat to press their demands. Yet I did not see anyone showing concern over women’s issues. No civic organisation raised its voice much on this matter either.
Now let us turn to our politics and system of governance. In our country’s legislature, there are reserved seats for women. This has been there from the very beginning. In the 1954 election, candidates for reserved women’s seats were elected by the votes of citizens. The number of seats was seven. The 1970 election was held under the legal framework (Legal Framework Order) issued by General Yahya Khan. There, 15 seats were reserved for women in the National Assembly.
These 15 seats were to be divided among the parties that won the general election.
Many people believe that our 1972 Constitution is the best in the world. For their information, that Constitution also reserved 15 seats for women. It was a new country. People had carried out many movements in the 1950s and 1960s for democracy and to eliminate inequality. Yet in the 1972 Constitution, there was no provision for voting in the reserved women’s seats.
Then why is there a different system for the national parliament? Or are women at the local level more independent, self-reliant, and mature, while at the national level they are inexperienced and powerless?
Instead, Yahya’s legal framework was followed. The majority party would take all the seats. Such an undemocratic and backward system was retained in the Constitution. Later, successive governments increased the number of reserved seats for women, but the old “selection” process remained intact. There has been a slight change, however: parties represented in Parliament now allocate the seats among women in proportion to their number of seats.
Now, what is the problem with holding direct elections for reserved seats? If such a system existed in 1954, why can it not exist in 2026? We assume that women in reserved seats represent the citizens of this country. In reality, they represent the members elected in the general election—most of whom are men, except for a handful. As a result, under the name of reserved women’s seats, the number of chairs in Parliament has increased. It has become nothing more than an “extension” of Parliament. Women in reserved seats are not genuine representatives of the people.
In local government, however, the situation is the opposite. In union councils, upazila councils, pourasavas, and city corporations, there are elections for reserved women’s seats. Both men and women vote there, and separate ballot papers are used.
Then why is there a different system for the national parliament? Or are women at the local level more independent, self-reliant, and mature, while at the national level they are inexperienced and powerless?
In our country, I have seen many so-called female leaders, as well as women who have made valuable contributions in different fields, eagerly seeking to become members of parliament through reserved seats.
Of all the women who have so far entered Parliament through reserved seats due to the patronage of male-dominated political parties, how many have made meaningful contributions—that remains questionable.
I have seen many members who cannot speak properly, even when reading from a script. Yet we maintain them with salaries and allowances. One might ask: is the quality of members elected through general seats really higher than those in reserved seats?
In the 13th National Parliament, the 50 seats reserved for women will soon be distributed. The Election Commission has already announced the schedule.
According to media reports, a major party is selling nomination forms. Many aspirants have rushed to obtain nominations. On the very first day, the number of aspirants exceeded a thousand. Many of them told journalists that they had participated in numerous movements and struggles and therefore deserved a seat. They complain that others are trying to parachute in. From their lamentations, it seems as though an MP ticket guarantees lifelong happiness.
Yet amid all this commotion, the key issue that no one is raising is this: those who are nominated to reserved women’s seats through the favour of party leaders—bypassing direct elections and avoiding accountability to citizens—will remain “powerless” in the political arena.
● Mohiuddin Ahmad, writer and researcher
The opinions expressed here are the author’s own.
* This piece appeared in Bangla in Prothom Alo print and online and has been rewritten Farjana Liaqat for Prothom Alo English Online