¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

Before we ask women to compete as equals in national elections, we must build a political system that offers them safety, respect, and a fair chance, writes Tasnia Symoom

BANGLADESH is now at a crucial crossroads as debates heat up over reforming women’s reserved seats in parliament. Should we stick to the current system where party leaders nominate women in proportion to their party’s general seat wins? Should we allow women to directly compete with other women in designated reserved constituencies? Or should we remove quotas altogether and make all seats open to both men and women?

At first glance, removing reserved seats may sound bold and progressive. Why not let women and men compete equally and let merit decide? But such an approach, while attractive in theory, could be a dangerous gamble in Bangladesh’s deeply patriarchal society. It could roll back hard-won gains in women’s political participation.

Ìý

Hidden risks of scrapping quotas

BANGLADESH’S politics reflect long-standing gender bias. Women who enter the political arena often face challenges that their male counterparts do not. When a woman steps forward, especially if she speaks about gender equality or justice, she is likely to be met with personal attacks, smear campaigns, and, often, outright threats. Social media becomes a tool not of dialogue but of harassment, with efforts focused on staining her character rather than debating her ideas.

In such an environment, asking women to contest against men without any support mechanisms is not equality — it is setting them up to fail. Social role theory and global political research show that deep-rooted gender stereotypes and voter biases often favour male candidates over equally competent women in patriarchal societies. Women are far less likely to win in such open contests, not because they lack ability, but because social norms and voter biases favour men. In our context, it is highly likely that most, if not all, women candidates would lose if forced into this kind of competition without safeguards. Such a move would shrink, rather than strengthen, women’s presence in parliament.

Ìý

Women vs women: Better, but not risk-free

DIRECT elections where women compete with other women in reserved constituencies seem like a fairer option than party-nominated seats. It would give women the chance to earn a public mandate and could reduce over-reliance on party loyalty.

Yet, this raises a serious question: can we ensure the safety of women candidates? Will they be able to campaign freely, meet voters, and speak their minds, particularly on gender rights and equality? Recent attacks on women political workers, combined with a disturbing tolerance of extremist groups harassing women who advocate for equality, suggest otherwise. Without strong state protection, direct contests could expose women candidates to more danger — discouraging capable women from even entering the fray.

Ìý

Imperfect but safest path

THE current reserved seat system is flawed. It often keeps women tied to party leadership, limiting their independence and influence. But it has at least ensured that women have a guaranteed voice in parliament. Rwanda is a powerful example of how descriptive representation — ensuring a certain number of women in parliament — can, over time, lead to real, substantive changes. In 2003, it increased the number of reserved seats for women, and since then, there has been considerable progress in implementing women-friendly policies, particularly in education, health, and justice.

For Bangladesh, this system remains the safest option in the current climate. It guarantees that women are at the table, even if their power is sometimes limited.

Ìý

A sensible middle ground

INSTEAD of gambling with reforms that could erase women’s hard-won gains, Bangladesh should consider a more measured, evidence-based path. A pilot programme could be introduced in the next national or local election cycle, where a limited number of reserved seats are opened for direct contests between men and women. This would allow us to observe actual voter behaviour in controlled settings, assess the social, cultural, and security challenges women candidates face, and generate data that can inform future reforms. Such a pilot could be designed with clear safeguards: enhanced security for women candidates, strict monitoring of electoral violence and harassment, and support for voter education campaigns aimed at reducing gender bias. The results of this pilot would provide valuable insight into whether the electorate is ready for broader gender-neutral competition and what institutional reforms are needed to make it work. At the same time, this approach preserves the core of the current reserved seat system, ensuring that women’s representation in parliament does not decline during the experimental phase. Rather than rushing into wholesale change without understanding the consequences, this gradual, evidence-driven model would help build a political environment where women can compete on an equal footing — without compromising the progress made so far.

Jumping into drastic change without evidence risks damaging women’s political representation at a time when it is more important than ever to strengthen it.

Bangladesh’s journey towards gender equality in politics has been long and difficult. Reserved seats have played an important part in that journey. Before we ask women to compete as equals, we must build a political system that offers them safety, respect, and a fair chance. Until then, we should protect and carefully improve what we have — not throw it away in the name of reform.

Ìý

Tasnia Symoom is a political scientist and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Kentucky. Her work focuses on South Asian politics, identity politics, and democratic transitions.