onstitutions do several things at once. They define a citizen’s membership and relationship with the state. They give equal power and protection to all citizens. They limit tyranny and power of the Executive. They authorise power but also constrain it. More importantly, they build a structure of the state that provides for equality but at the same time ensures inclusion of the marginalised and the disadvantaged.

We have just marked 50 years of our constitution and while celebrating equality, rights, protection and affirmation promised to women in our constitution, we must assess where women are located as citizens, and how they understand and relate to it. Constitutions can only be useful if women have the space and the agency to not only make laws, and amend them, but also to protect and promote their rights through enabling infrastructure, including litigation.

A gender audit would not only allow women to own and uphold the positively framed rights, freedoms and guarantees of the constitution, it will also embed women in the constitution and the community, and provide them the visibility vis a vis the constitution. In addition, this audit may vest women with the agency in relation to the courts, the government, the policy makers, allowing them to ask why the equality and affirmative action promised in the constitution has not provided the impetus it should have to change women’s status in society.

The 1973 constitution is positive and has all the indicators to being a woman- and rights-friendly legal document that women can draw strength from. Six women signed the 1973 constitution. They were Nargis Naeem Sindhu, Zahida Sultana, Ashraf Abbasi, Jennifer Qazi Musa, Naseem Jahan and Shireen Wahab. Of these, Begum Naseem Jahan, Begum Ashraf Abbasi and Jennifer Musa were a part of the Constitution Committee. I do not have access to their contributions in the committee, but I have gone through their speeches in the constitutional debate. The good news is, these women were vocal and stood their ground to fight for equal representation. Begum Naseem Jahan’s was one of the most learned speech to be delivered, as she spoke of changing the very character of the society, economy and indeed, the parliament and the state.

She said and I quote: “Emancipation of women is very important because we are exploited of the exploited (Hum mazloom say bhi mazloom tar hain) … Therefore, it is very important that women are emancipated for the whole nation to march forward. That is why women should find a place in every sphere,” she added.

As women parliamentarians, through the platform of the parliamentary caucus, we made an attempt to revisit the constitution from a gender lens, and looked closely at the language of the law, equality provisions, provisions on empowerment and finally, representation.

On language, at the outset, many constitutions treat the masculine pronouns as a norm and like our own constitution, include a general clause that masculine import should be read to include the feminine, and reference to man to include a woman. However, feminist readings of constitutions have raised the apprehension that language does matter and it is argued that the use of masculine collective has often served as a screen for historical invisibility of women, that it has reinforced stereotypes and indirectly excluded women from the space of the law. It is clear that the use of this language harkens us to a time when there was gender segregation and the public space was out of bounds for women. Hence, as a reminder of the time when women were structurally subordinate to men, this language is not only out of sync but also unfair and ostensibly discriminatory. It is time that language is made gender neutral, so that women come nearer to the supreme law than before.

Despite 17 percent constitutional quota that added 60 seats in the National assembly in 2001, we have never been able to add more than 10 or 11 women, elected on general seats.

The second theme, and my favourite, is equality. Article 25 is the most unambiguous, express and powerful provision stating that all citizens are equal, that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sex and that nothing shall stop the state from making special provisions for women and children. Yet, in practice, equality is a pipe dream. Customary practices, different systems of beliefs and cultural constructs obstruct equal access to entitlements and women remain far behind their male counterparts. Even for a woman as strong as Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, equality was a constant struggle. I quote: “Clearly, it’s not easy for women in a modern society, no matter where we live. We still have to go an extra mile to prove that we are equal to men.”

How should equality be enforced, ensured and practiced when it comes to women’s access to equal opportunities merits a closer examination. In my view, the non-discrimination clause also needs expansion. I have already submitted a constitutional amendment in Clause 2 of Article 25 as follows: “The state shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on grounds of race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion or language.”

The third theme is the empowerment of women generally and enforcement of substantive rights in the constitution. Pakistan’s constitution has a vast number of provisions to empower women in the chapter on Principles of Policy. But how do we ensure that women’s physical needs, access to education, health, property, livelihoods are ensured as principles of policy themselves are non-binding for governments? How do we ensure that the state spends on girls’ education, women’s health and women’s livelihoods with the aim to bring women at par with men? Empowerment of women will only be possible if women are provided equal rights, equal opportunities and equal representation. But have the Principles of Policy been given the attention that they should? Has the parliament taken the implementation report with the seriousness that it deserves?

Finally, the most sensitive, contested and political of the issues that concern women today, is representation, which is at the heart of democratic inclusion. The 1973 constitution provided for a temporary quota of 10 National Assembly seats and no representation in the Senate. Almost all women who debated in the House rose to express their concern on the representation issue. Begum Jehan in the constitutional debate raised her concern as follows:

“It is my contention that women have not been given representation in the parliament. Although I am here, sir, we are here, and we are going to be here in the next parliament also, but sir, at the mercy of men. If they elect us, we will be here, and many times I have been told we will never elect you and then I tell them, ‘we will never elect you either.’”

One of the members, Begum Shireen Wahab, was particularly vocal:

“Sir, as far as the women are concerned, they have a complaint that the committee has not been generous to them. Women have not been given representation in the Senate. Besides the seats allocated in the National Assembly are few. Women should have been allotted at least 30 percent [of the seats].”

Today, where do we stand with respect to representation? Despite a 17 percent constitutional quota that added 60 seats in the National assembly in 2001, we have never been able to add more than 10 or 11 women, elected on general seats. If the equality clause were to be followed by the book, women today would have fifty percent membership in the parliament, both though direct and indirect elections. It is high time, the women settled for nothing less than 33 percent, not only in the parliament but in all spheres of public life – in civil service, in the armed forces, in the bureaucracy. I would suggest both constitutional and law-making mechanisms to push for this number.

That is why as we read about our rights, as we our rewrite its language, or demand equal representation, let us reclaim the space of the law as envisaged in the fundamental law and march ahead as we embark upon a new chapter in the parliamentary life of democracy in Pakistan.

The writer is a Pakistan Peoples Party Member of National Assembly