More than 2,000 women to contest election in Pakistan for first time

1 / 5
Hamida Shahid is contesting a provincial assembly seat in Upper Dir, a remote and conservative district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province where until recently women were not allowed to vote. (Photo courtesy: Hamida Shahid’s Facebook page)
2 / 5
Hamida Shahid submits her nomination papers to the returning officer in Upper Dir. (Photo courtesy: Hamida Shahid’s Facebook page)
3 / 5
Sughran Lashari. (Photo courtesy: Sughran Lashari's Facebook page)
4 / 5
Sughran Lashari. (Photo courtesy: Sughran Lashari's Facebook page)
5 / 5
Sughran Lashari. (Photo courtesy: Sughran Lashari's Facebook page)
Updated 27 June 2018
Follow

More than 2,000 women to contest election in Pakistan for first time

  • Candidates are seeking votes for national and provincial assembly seats in all four provinces
  • Elections Act 2017 makes it mandatory for political parties to allocate at least five percent of tickets to women candidates

ISLAMABAD: Hamida Shahid is seeking election for a provincial assembly seat in a remote and conservative area of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province against two male candidates and is hopeful of winning the seat.

“I am getting an excellent response not only from female voters but also male voters of the area,” Shahid, who is contesting election from Upper Dir, told Arab News on the telephone.
Until recently women in the Upper Dir area were not allowed to vote, let alone contest elections for a provincial or national assembly seat.
“All political parties in the area have decided unanimously that women voters will not be barred from casting their votes,” she said, “I am also trying to create awareness among women voters about the importance of their ballot on election day.”
Shahid, who is a fashion designer and businesswoman, said that she will work for the provision of education and health facilities in the area if elected to the assembly.
“Hundreds of our women die during pregnancy each year due to lack of health facilities and thousands of our children are out of school. This needs to be changed and I will try my best to change it,” she said.
She said that about 50 percent of men in her constituency had so far assured her of their vote and that more would announce their support in the coming days. “They (male voters) are supporting me as their daughter, sister and mother and I think this is a healthy sign for our democracy,” she said.
Shahid says that a large number of men are also campaigning for her in the hilly areas of the constituency. “This will help change the perception in the society so that both men and women are seen as equal and that women can equally contribute to the betterment of the society,” she said.
According to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), 152 women candidates have filed their nomination papers in Balochistan — as well as 350 from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, 403 from Sindh province and 1,100 from Punjab province — to contest the election to be held on July 25.
Political analysts said that the increasing participation of women in the electoral process was a healthy sign for democracy in the country. They, however, linked the number of women candidates to the Elections Act’s provision that makes it mandatory for political parties to allocate at least five percent of their tickets to women candidates.
“A political party ... while making the selection of candidates on general seats shall ensure at least five percent representation of women candidates,” the Elections Act 2017 states.
Rasul Bukhsh Rais, a political analyst, said that the Elections Act had helped to create space for women candidates to contest elections and credit was due to the previous parliament for passing this historic law.
“Women have been contesting direct election in Pakistan in the past too but they used to come from elite and well-established families only,” he told Arab News.
Rais said that the Elections Act had allowed political parties to allocate tickets to women from the working class too, especially in remote and conservative areas that were previously contested and ruled by landlords only.
He said that though participation of women in politics is an old tradition in Pakistan, this time more women were challenging male candidates in the constituencies.
“This is a new trend in our politics and also reflects the positive transformation of our society,” he said.
There are a total of 342 seats in the National Assembly and 272 of them are filled by direct elections. In addition, the Pakistani constitution reserves 10 seats for religious minorities and 60 seats for women, to be filled by proportional representation among parliamentary parties.
Likewise, a total of 128 seats are reserved for women in the provincial assemblies, including 66 in Punjab, 29 in Sindh, 22 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 11 in Balochistan.
Besides these reserved seats, women candidates are also seeking to get elected to the National Assembly and provincial assemblies through direct elections.
Sughran Lashari, another woman candidate from Jacobabad district in Sindh province, said that she had been conducting her campaign for a provincial assembly seat and was “receiving good response from the female voters.”
She said that it was not easy to convince the male voters of her constituency to give her their ballot because the “majority of them are not educated but I am trying my best to persuade them for their vote.”
Lashari said that many women candidates contested direct elections in the interior of Sindh but the majority of them come from well-settled families. “I come from a humble background and am quite optimistic to make a mark in this election,” she told Arab News.
Farzana Bari, a political analyst and academic, said that political parties had awarded tickets to the majority of female candidates from losing constituencies to merely fulfil the legal requirement, but “this too will help increase acceptability of women’s political role in society.”
She said that mainstream political parties had failed to address women's issues and it was now the responsibility of women candidates from all parties to not only raise their voice for marginalized segments of society but to try to address their genuine grievances.
“Women form almost half of the population of Pakistan and their active participation in politics is bound to bring positive and healthy changes in the society and our democratic setup,” Bari said.


War powers resolution fails in Senate as 2 Republicans bow to Trump pressure

Updated 15 January 2026
Follow

War powers resolution fails in Senate as 2 Republicans bow to Trump pressure

WASHINGTON: Senate Republicans voted to dismiss a war powers resolution Wednesday that would have limited President Donald Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks on Venezuela after two GOP senators reversed course on supporting the legislation.
Trump put intense pressure on five Republican senators who joined with Democrats to advance the resolution last week and ultimately prevailed in heading off passage of the legislation. Two of the Republicans — Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana — flipped under the pressure.
Vice President JD Vance had to break the 50-50 deadlock in the Senate on a Republican motion to dismiss the bill.
The outcome of the high-profile vote demonstrated how Trump still has command over much of the Republican conference, yet the razor-thin vote tally also showed the growing concern on Capitol Hill over the president’s aggressive foreign policy ambitions.
Democrats forced the debate after US troops captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a surprise nighttime raid earlier this month
“Here we have one of the most successful attacks ever and they find a way to be against it. It’s pretty amazing. And it’s a shame,” Trump said at a speech in Michigan Tuesday. He also hurled insults at several of the Republicans who advanced the legislation, calling Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky a “stone cold loser” and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine “disasters.” Those three Republicans stuck to their support for the legislation.
Trump’s latest comments followed earlier phone calls with the senators, which they described as terse. The president’s fury underscored how the war powers vote had taken on new political significance as Trump also threatens military action to accomplish his goal of possessing Greenland.
The legislation, even if it had cleared the Senate, had virtually no chance of becoming law because it would eventually need to be signed by Trump himself. But it represented both a test of GOP loyalty to the president and a marker for how much leeway the Republican-controlled Senate is willing to give Trump to use the military abroad. Republican angst over his recent foreign policy moves — especially threats of using military force to seize Greenland from a NATO ally — is still running high in Congress.
Two Republicans reconsider
Hawley, who helped advance the war powers resolution last week, said Trump’s message during a phone call was that the legislation “really ties my hands.” The senator said he had a follow-up phone call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio Monday and was told “point blank, we’re not going to do ground troops.”
The senator added that he also received assurances that the Trump administration will follow constitutional requirements if it becomes necessary to deploy troops again to the South American country.
“We’re getting along very well with Venezuela,” Trump told reporters at a ceremony for the signing of an unrelated bill Wednesday.
As senators went to the floor for the vote Wednesday evening, Young also told reporters he was no longer in support. He said that he had extensive conversations with Rubio and received assurances that the secretary of state will appear at a public hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Young also shared a letter from Rubio that stated the president will “seek congressional authorization in advance (circumstances permitting)” if he engaged in “major military operations” in Venezuela.
The senators also said his efforts were also instrumental in pushing the administration to release Wednesday a 22-page Justice Department memo laying out the legal justification for the snatch-and-grab operation against Maduro.
That memo, which was heavily redacted, indicates that the administration, for now, has no plans to ramp up military operations in Venezuela.
“We were assured that there is no contingency plan to engage in any substantial and sustained operation that would amount to a constitutional war,” according to the memo signed by Assistant Attorney General Elliot Gaiser.
Trump’s shifting rationale for military intervention
Trump has used a series of legal arguments for his campaign against Maduro.
As he built up a naval force in the Caribbean and destroyed vessels that were allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela, the Trump administration tapped wartime powers under the global war on terror by designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations.
The administration has claimed the capture of Maduro himself was actually a law enforcement operation, essentially to extradite the Venezuelan president to stand trial for charges in the US that were filed in 2020.
Paul criticized the administration for first describing its military build-up in Caribbean as a counternarcotics operation but now floating Venezuela’s vast oil reserves as a reason for maintaining pressure.
“The bait and switch has already happened,” he said.
Trump’s foreign policy worries Congress
Lawmakers, including a significant number of Republicans, have been alarmed by Trump’s recent foreign policy talk. In recent weeks, he has pledged that the US will “run” Venezuela for years to come, threatened military action to take possession of Greenland and told Iranians protesting their government that ” help is on its way.”
Senior Republicans have tried to massage the relationship between Trump and Denmark, a NATO ally that holds Greenland as a semi-autonomous territory. But Danish officials emerged from a meeting with Vance and Rubio Wednesday saying a “fundamental disagreement” over Greenland remains.
“What happened tonight is a roadmap to another endless war,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said at a news conference following the vote.
More than half of US adults believe President Donald Trump has “gone too far” in using the US military to intervene in other countries, according to a new AP-NORC poll.
House Democrats have also filed a similar war powers resolution and can force a vote on it as soon as next week.
How Republican leaders dismissed the bill

Last week’s procedural vote on the war powers resolution was supposed to set up hours of debate and a vote on final passage. But Republican leaders began searching for a way to defuse the conflict between their members and Trump as well as move on quickly to other business.
Once Hawley and Young changed their support for the bill, Republicans were able to successfully challenge whether it was appropriate when the Trump administration has said US troops are not currently deployed in Venezuela.
“We’re not currently conducting military operations there,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune in a floor speech. “But Democrats are taking up this bill because their anti-Trump hysteria knows no bounds.”
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who has brought a series of war powers resolutions this year, accused Republicans of burying a debate about the merits of an ongoing campaign of attacks and threats against Venezuela.
“If this cause and if this legal basis were so righteous, the administration and its supporters would not be afraid to have this debate before the public and the United States Senate,” he said in a floor speech.