By Samuel Bashir
(President, Punjab Minority Forum Pakistan)
Is the demand for a joint electorate for Pakistan’s religious minorities a new political demand?
Pakistan’s own electoral history suggests otherwise.
Religious minority candidates contested general seats under the joint electorate in the 1970 general elections. The country subsequently experienced a separate electorate system that politically segregated minority citizens for more than two decades. After years of advocacy, legal challenges and civil-society mobilisation, the joint electorate was restored in 2002.
The debate today, therefore, is not about introducing an entirely new electoral concept. It is about understanding Pakistan’s own democratic experience and asking how political participation by religious minorities can be made more meaningful and representative.
A 2026 publication by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), ‘A Separation Refused: A Testimony to the Movement for the Restoration of the Joint Electorate in Pakistan,’ documents the historical struggle for the restoration of the joint electorate and examines the changing political participation of religious minorities. The report provides an important basis for understanding the issue in historical context.
1970: When Minority Candidates Contested General Seats
The 1970 general elections remain an important reference point in this debate.
They were conducted under a joint electorate, meaning that citizens were not divided into separate electoral rolls on the basis of religion for general seats. Religious minority voters could participate in the wider electoral process, while minority candidates could also contest general constituencies.
According to the CSJ study, the Pakistan Masihi League participated in the 1970 elections, with H. L. Hayat and Emmanuel Zafar among its candidates. Another prominent Christian politician, Francis X. Lobo, contested from Karachi. None of them won, but their participation itself is historically significant.
Their unsuccessful campaigns should not obscure the larger point.
Minority candidates were not confined to a separate political arena. They entered the same electoral competition and sought the support of the wider electorate.
That historical experience is relevant to today’s debate. The participation of religious minority candidates in general elections is not a new idea in Pakistan.
1975: Reserved Seats Alongside the Joint Electorate
Pakistan’s electoral history also demonstrates that a joint electorate and reserved seats do not necessarily have to be treated as competing systems.
According to the CSJ study, in 1975, when minority representation in the assemblies was considered inadequate, reserved seats for religious minorities were introduced as an affirmative measure. These seats were filled through elections within the assemblies, with the entire assembly serving as the electoral college.
This is an important historical lesson.
It shows that Pakistan has previously experimented with a model in which citizens participated through a common electoral system while additional mechanisms were used to ensure minority representation.
The question, therefore, should not simply be whether Pakistan needs joint elections or reserved seats.
The more important question is how both mechanisms can be designed to ensure political equality, effective representation and democratic accountability.
1979–1997: The Era of Separate Electorates
A major change came in 1979 when separate electorates were introduced at the local-government level during General Zia-ul-Haq’s rule. The system was subsequently extended to national and provincial elections through changes introduced before the 1985 general elections.
Minorities were placed on separate electoral rolls and were restricted to voting for candidates designated for non-Muslim seats. The separate electorate system remained in force through the 1985, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1997 general elections.
The consequences went beyond the mechanics of voting.
Religious minority citizens were increasingly placed in a separate political sphere, while their participation in general-seat politics was restricted.
For many minority rights advocates, the issue consequently became a question not simply of electoral procedure, but of equal citizenship.
The Struggle Against Political Segregation
Resistance to the separate electorate system developed gradually.
Religious minority leaders, churches, Hindu organisations, human-rights groups and civil-society organisations campaigned for the restoration of the joint electorate. The movement was not the work of a single organisation or individual; it developed through years of advocacy, public debate, legal challenges and engagement with political authorities.
One important episode came in 1992, when the government attempted to introduce a religion column on national identity cards. Civil society and religious minorities mounted a countrywide campaign, and the decision was subsequently withdrawn.
These experiences helped broaden the electoral debate from a minority-specific demand into a wider question of democratic rights and citizenship.
1993: The Legal Battle Over General Seats
The struggle also entered the courts.
In 1993, Ch. Naeem Shakir and Pervaiz Bhatti sought to contest general seats: Ch. Naeem Shakir from Punjab PP-126 Lahore and Pervaiz Bhatti from Sindh PS-90 Karachi. Their cases challenged the logic of restricting religious minority citizens to a separate electoral framework.
The CSJ study records that the Sindh High Court allowed Pervaiz Bhatti’s candidature, while the Election Commission subsequently denied it following the Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of the Election Commission in Naeem Shakir’s case.
The immediate legal outcome did not produce the desired change. But these cases helped establish an important principle in the political debate: religious minority citizens were seeking the right to participate in mainstream electoral politics rather than remain confined to a separate electoral category.
This also demonstrates that the demand for participation in general-seat politics did not emerge after 2002. The struggle had already been under way for years.
2002: Restoration of the Joint Electorate
A decisive change came on 17 January 2002, when the government announced the restoration of the joint electorate through Chief Executive’s Order No. 7 of 2002.
The separate electorates were formally abolished for the National and Provincial Assemblies, and unified electoral rolls were introduced, with an exception concerning Ahmadis under separate provisions. Minority candidates once again became eligible to contest general seats. Reserved seats for religious minorities were retained and filled through party lists.
The general elections held on 10 October 2002 were conducted under the restored joint-electorate framework. Minority voters could vote for general-seat candidates, and minority citizens could contest general seats, while reserved seats continued to provide an additional mechanism of representation.
The restoration was therefore more than an electoral adjustment. It marked the return of religious minority citizens to mainstream electoral politics after years of institutional separation.
What Changed After 2002?
The restoration of the joint electorate changed the political environment for religious minorities.
According to the CSJ study, minority citizens were again able to participate as voters within their local constituencies, vote for mainstream candidates, raise constituency-level issues with elected representatives and contest general seats in national and provincial assemblies. The study also documents increased political participation and the emergence of minority citizens as mainstream party workers and political actors.
The post-2002 period also saw minority politicians take on parliamentary and governmental responsibilities at both the federal and provincial levels.
Figures such as Shahbaz Bhatti, Kamran Michael, Naveed Anthony, Khalil George, Akram Masih Gill, Kesoo Mal Kheal Das, Khalil Tahir Sindhu, Ijaz Alam Augustine and Ramesh Singh Arora became part of Pakistan’s wider political landscape in different periods and capacities.
These developments do not mean that political equality has been fully achieved. They do, however, demonstrate that opening the mainstream electoral space created opportunities that were largely unavailable under the separate electorate system.
The Current Picture: Progress, but Also a Question
The debate has now moved to a new stage.
Pakistan has retained the joint electorate, but the question of effective minority representation remains.
The current National Assembly has 342 seats, including 10 reserved seats for non-Muslims. The National Assembly’s official website currently lists Dr. Mahesh Kumar Malani of the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians as a non-Muslim member elected on a general seat from NA-215, Tharparkar-II. It separately lists the 10 reserved non-Muslim seats.
Dr. Malani’s presence on a general seat is significant because it illustrates that a religious minority candidate can, under the joint electorate, win a constituency through the wider electoral process.
But one general-seat example also highlights the larger question: why are so few minority representatives reaching parliament through general constituencies?
The answer cannot simply be that minority citizens lack political capacity. Political opportunity, party nomination practices, constituency dynamics, resources and the willingness of mainstream parties to invest in minority candidates all matter.
Are Joint Elections Enough?
The restoration of the joint electorate was an important democratic reform, but joint elections alone cannot guarantee effective political representation.
One of the continuing debates concerns reserved seats.
At present, reserved seats for non-Muslims are filled through political-party lists rather than direct elections by minority voters. The CSJ study identifies this as an area requiring further discussion and recommends more participatory and transparent criteria for party nominations, including greater participation of minority members in party decision-making.
This is not necessarily an argument against reserved seats.
Rather, it raises a democratic question:
Can the existing reserved-seat mechanism be made more participatory, transparent and accountable to the communities it is intended to represent?
That question deserves discussion among parliamentarians, political parties, election authorities, minority organisations and civil society.
Political Parties Have a Central Role
Political parties are critical to the future of minority political representation.
Religious minority workers should not be viewed only as candidates for reserved seats. Those who have established political credibility and a record of public service should also have opportunities to contest general seats.
A minority political worker who has spent years building a political base in a constituency should not automatically be confined to a reserved seat simply because of his or her religious identity.
The same principle applies inside political parties.
Minority members need meaningful participation in party decision-making structures, rather than being brought into prominence only during elections or when reserved-seat nominations are being discussed.
The Way Forward
The next stage of the debate should therefore move beyond simply defending the restoration of the joint electorate.
The question should be how to turn electoral inclusion into meaningful political representation.
Several areas deserve serious national discussion.
First, political parties should provide religious minority workers with genuine opportunities to contest general seats, including constituencies where they have established political and social support.
Second, the nomination process for reserved seats should become more transparent and participatory. Political parties could consider stronger internal democratic mechanisms and meaningful participation of minority members in the selection of candidates.
Third, minority citizens should have a stronger voice in political parties and in policy-making structures.
Fourth, minority political representation should not be reduced to issues of religious identity alone. Education, employment, healthcare, women’s and children’s rights, forced conversion, child marriage, protection of places of worship, misuse of laws and local government are all part of the broader question of equal citizenship.
Fifth, minority organisations and political workers need to build a more coordinated democratic agenda around constitutional equality and political participation.
One Important Limitation Remains
The restoration of the joint electorate in 2002 did not remove every form of religious distinction from Pakistan’s electoral system.
The CSJ report notes that provisions introduced through Sections 7-B and 7-C of the 2002 electoral framework continued a separate arrangement affecting Ahmadi citizens.
For that reason, the broader question of electoral equality remains unfinished.
Any serious discussion of an inclusive electoral system must therefore distinguish between the restoration of the joint electorate for most citizens and the continuing legal provisions that create a separate electoral position for Ahmadis.
What Can Pakistan Learn From Its Own History?
Pakistan’s electoral history offers several distinct lessons.
The 1970 elections demonstrated that minority candidates could enter the same electoral contest as other citizens and seek votes from the general electorate.
The 1975 experience demonstrated that reserved seats could coexist with a joint electorate.
The separate electorate period from 1979 to 1997 demonstrated the consequences of placing citizens into religiously segregated electoral categories.
The struggles of the 1990s demonstrated that sustained advocacy, legal action and civil-society mobilisation could keep the question of equal political participation alive.
And the restoration of the joint electorate in 2002 demonstrated that a long-running democratic demand could eventually become electoral and legal reality.
That history matters today.
The demand for a joint electorate is therefore not a new political experiment. It is part of Pakistan’s own democratic experience.
Equal Political Citizenship
At its heart, the joint electorate is about how the state defines citizenship.
A religious minority citizen should be able to vote for candidates in his or her constituency, contest a general seat, participate in a political party and influence public policy without being confined to a separate electoral category because of religious identity.
At the same time, voters from the majority community should have the opportunity to evaluate a minority candidate on the basis of political ability, public service, character and programme rather than religious identity alone.
That is the broader meaning of political integration.
It is also why the discussion about joint electorates should not be framed merely as a demand by minorities for additional political privileges. It is a discussion about whether all citizens can participate in the democratic process on an equal political footing.
Moving the Struggle Forward
The struggle for minority political rights now needs to move from protest alone towards a more organised constitutional and democratic agenda.
The objective should be greater participation in mainstream politics, genuine opportunities on general seats, transparent and participatory processes for reserved-seat nominations, stronger representation within political parties and practical implementation of the constitutional principle of equality.
Minority political workers, meanwhile, also have a responsibility to connect their struggle with the wider concerns of Pakistani citizens.
When minority rights are presented only as a minority issue, their political reach can remain limited. When they are framed as questions of equal citizenship, constitutional equality and democracy, they become part of the national democratic agenda.
Pakistan’s own experience of restoring the joint electorate demonstrates precisely this point.
The question today is therefore not whether the demand for a joint electorate is new or old.
The real question is:
Can Pakistan turn electoral inclusion into genuine, effective and accountable political representation?
We are not asking for a separate Pakistan for minorities.
We are asking for equal political citizenship within Pakistan.
And that is not the beginning of a new political experiment. It is the continuation of a democratic struggle already embedded in Pakistan’s own history.
Source: Centre for Social Justice, A Separation Refused: A Testimony to the Movement for the Restoration of the Joint Electorate in Pakistan, August 2026.
