In Pakistani town, women silent at ballot box
MATEELA, Pakistan — For decades, not a single woman in this dusty Pakistani village surrounded by wheat fields and orange trees has voted. And they are not likely to vote in this week's parliamentary election either. The village's men have spoken.
“It's the will of my husband,” said one woman, Fatma Shamshed. “This is the decision of all the families.”
Mateela is one of 564 out of the 64,000 polling districts across Pakistan in which not a single woman voted in the country's 2008 election. The men from this village of roughly 9,000 people got together with other nearby communities to decide that their women would not vote on Saturday either.
This week's election will bring a major first for democracy in Pakistan — the first time a civilian government has fulfilled its term and handed over power to another. But women still face an uphill battle to make their voices heard in the political process, as voters, candidates and in parliament, where they hold 22 percent of the seats in the lower house.
Women represent only about 43 percent of the roughly 86 million registered voters, according to election commission data. In more conservative areas like Khyber Paktunkhwa province and Baluchistan, the percentage drops even further.
In places like Mateela, the fact that men decide women should not be allowed to vote is a decades-old tradition. Some men say women don't have the mental capacity. Other times they don't want wives and daughters to leave the house. Some simply don't see the point.
At a recent gathering in the village, about 100 miles south of Islamabad, activists tried to encourage the opposite. The Association for Gender Awareness & Human Empowerment, an independent group working to increase voter participation, met with residents, trying to encourage them to let women vote.
Mateela's men sat with male activists in a courtyard near the village mosque. Secluded behind a gate, the women sat on a concrete floor and listened to a female activist talk about the benefits of voting.
Yar Mohammed, one of the village elders, insisted it is not a matter of discrimination. The problem, he said, is that the local polling station is mixed gender. The men worry that their wives and daughters will be harassed, so they want a separate women's station. In some places, but not all, polls are specified for men or women only.
“We stop our women from going to polling stations because we think if they do, men would tease them by staring or touching them,” he said.
Mateela's women certainly want a political voice. They talk of their desire to see better roads, schools in which their daughters can get an education and a reliable supply of gas for cooking and heating.
They don't directly defy their fathers and husbands, but they do lobby them to change their minds.
One resident, Mohammed Shamshed, said the women in his family “come up to us and say, ‘We want to vote.' ”
“But we tell them that it is a collective decision,” he said.
Rubina Arshad said things are slowly starting to change as men and women become more educated.
“This is the tradition and the culture, from many, many years ago. We could not cast the vote,” she said.
Another deterrent to women's voting has been that many don't have the proper identification card, called a CNIC card. Historically, many men in conservative areas have not seen the need to send their wives or daughters to get the ID card or have not wanted to pay for it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Smart city’ plan in India doable amid lack of basic urban services?
- Greek default drama plays out
- Smoking ban appears to be cause of 15-hour Australian prison riot
- Egyptian president plans tougher legal system in speech at burial of prosecutor
- Europeans swelter in rare heat
- Little hope of survivors in Indonesian plane crash
- Map may have guided Columbus
- Cool wind provides relief as Pakistan heat wave’s death toll tops 830
- NATO’s Response Force to grow as allies of Russia, U.S. rattle sabers
- Allentown firm ups security at Western Pa. facilities after France attack
- Effort under way to beat Tuesday deadline for nuclear agreement