'Elect, not select': Why NCP leader Tasnim Jara calls for direct elections to women's seats in Parliament

Amidst the ongoing debate over increasing the number of reserved seats in the Parliament for women MPs from the existing 50 to 100, the National Citizen Party (NCP) has called for a different approach altogether.

They have been advocating for a direct election of at least 100 women from general constituencies to ensure stronger democratic representation, instead of the existing system of selecting women as reserved seats MPs.

In the face of this, political parties at today's (17 June) dialogue with the National Consensus Commission agreed upon increasing the seats to 100 from 50 in Parliament, with an ongoing discussion on the election method.

Also read: Consensus reached over raising women seats in parliament to 100, amending Article 70 of Constitution: BNP

In an interview with The Business Standard, NCP Senior Joint Member Secretary Dr Tasnim Jara, who has long been advocating for the direct polls move, speaks about the challenges and the possible outcomes regarding their proposal.

What is the NCP's exact proposal to the Consensus Commission?

The National Citizen Party is calling on all political parties to support the principle that the 100 seats reserved for women should be filled through a direct election. We are not prescribing the electoral formula at this stage. We are saying that no matter what the model, women should be elected, not appointed.

Also read: NCP calls for direct election of 100 women from general seats, rejects BNP's reserved seat increase proposal

We believe this is a structural reform that would increase accountability, deepen democratic legitimacy, and allow women to play a more substantive role in public life.

What if your proposal was rejected?

We would have continued to advocate for it. Principles do not expire when they are defeated once. They gain power every time they are reasserted.

Whether through legislation, public campaigning, or alliances across party lines, we would have kept pressing this demand. Because representation without election is not what democracy promises. And the promise of democracy should not be withdrawn from women.

We want to build a future where no woman will have to ask permission to lead. Whether the current parties embrace it or resist it, that future is already in motion.

What if your proposal gets accepted, what would the election process look like?

We are not proposing a single model. There are many options. The key is that we agree, in principle, to design a system where women are directly elected to the seats reserved for them.

Once that commitment is secured, the consensus commission, civil society and political parties can work toward a model suited to our context. We already have precedents from other countries. What is needed is the political will to move from selection to election.

What are the risks of expanding reserved seats for women in Parliament without making them directly elected positions?

By increasing the number of women in Parliament without giving them a mandate from the people, we institutionalise a form of symbolic inclusion that carries no democratic weight. We may tell ourselves we are making progress, but the underlying structure remains unchanged: women remain present, but unempowered.

Representation, if it is to be meaningful, must involve more than physical presence. It must include accountability, legitimacy, and public trust. None of these can be bestowed by appointment. They can only be earned through election.

How does the lack of public accountability impact the effectiveness of women MPs and their legitimacy as political actors?

Accountability is the source of both authority and restraint. An MP who enters Parliament without facing the electorate does not have a mandate from any defined public. She has no constituency that she must return to, no group of citizens who can ask her to justify her decisions, and no sense of obligation to respond to everyday needs.

This lack of a horizontal relationship with the people means that her political strength is limited from the start. She speaks, but not on behalf of the public that sent her. Her primary obligation becomes upward to the party, not outward to the citizens. That shift, subtle as it may seem, changes the very nature of representation.

How can direct elections inspire broader societal change, especially for young women?

Every election is also a public story. When a woman contests and wins a seat, she creates a path that others can see and follow. Her campaign becomes a lesson in possibility. Her victory becomes a story that a girl in a village classroom or an urban schoolroom can recognise and relate to. They begin to see a possible future where leadership is not inherited, appointed, or permitted, but earned. That shift in perception not only empowers the woman who wins, but it also alters the cultural assumptions about who deserves to lead.

That story disappears when women do not contest. They are not seen. They are not questioned. They do not campaign, debate, or stand on a stage asking for trust. And when none of those things happen, they are not imitated either.

You speak about how current reforms may institutionalise symbolic representation over substantive inclusion—how can this be avoided in the current political climate? 

There is a real risk that we mistake surface for substance. If 100 women enter Parliament but none are elected, we will have constructed a structure that looks inclusive but functions as before.

Rethinking women's political representation in Bangladesh

Symbolism becomes dangerous when it obscures the absence of actual power. A woman who holds a seat but lacks a mandate is present, but not in the full sense of democratic representation. The work of inclusion begins not with increasing numbers but with ensuring those numbers carry weight. That weight comes from public choice, not internal selection.

What role do you believe civil society and other political parties should play in order to bring about this change — separate polls for women?

They must act now, or risk becoming irrelevant to the very change they claim to champion. Principles must be defended when they are threatened, not just when they are safe to state.

Also read: Activists urge direct elections for reserved seats to strengthen women's political empowerment

The Nagorik Coalition, for example, has called for directly elected women's seats. But that position is only meaningful if it is defended now, while the decision is still being shaped. Silence at such moments, I think, is not neutrality. Rather, it is withdrawal.

What is your view on the existing history of reserved seats for women in the Bangladesh Parliament? 

It has been a mixed legacy. Many women have made meaningful contributions despite the limitations of the system. But the design was always flawed. It treated women as representatives of their parties, not of the people.

We should not measure the system only by the strength of individuals who overcame its limitations. We should also ask what it would have looked like had those individuals entered through an open contest. The goal should not be to create a few exceptions. The goal should be to build a structure where participation is standard and earned, not negotiated.

What positive changes would direct election bring?

First, it would create a public link between women MPs and specific communities. That link matters. It brings issues from the ground into Parliament with clarity and urgency. 

Second, it would shift accountability away from party elites and toward the public. As a result, voters will be better served. 

Third, it would force all parties to invest in the leadership of women, not as tokens but as future lawmakers. 

And finally, it changes the perception of power. It would show young people, especially girls, that political power is not something given; it is something one earns.

In short, direct election allows for representative legitimacy, not only formal presence.

What kind of response are you getting from women leaders on the ground?

They are overwhelmingly supportive. Most women in grassroots politics know the difference between a seat at the table and a voice in the room. They want to contest. They want to lead.

This aspiration has existed for a long time. What has been missing is a structure that responds to it with seriousness.

It is often those in elite spaces, within parties or media, who underestimate this desire. But those on the ground do not. They understand that democracy without women's mandate is democracy with one eye closed.