Faith of voters

FOR many, an election, with one person, one vote, is among the few occasions when everyone is equal. This is why the need to declare one’s religion is uncomfortable. After all, what significance can personal belief have in a democratic system? In Pakistan, this relates to inclusion as the Constitution promises true representation for religious minorities. It also ensures that the voice of the minority is heard. Articles 51 and 106 guarantee reserved seats to non-Muslims in the National Assembly and in the provincial assemblies. These protections must not be seen as tools of appeasement because without them, our minority communities risk being ignored completely.

The declaration of religion is not a meaningless formality. It is rooted in the essence of real democracy, which is not based on majority rule but on majority protection. The Election Commission of Pakistan cannot allocate reserved seats without the necessary background information. In this context, it cannot be said that this requirement is aimed at creating divisions. On the contrary, it aspires to include and unite. Those who support this requirement have every right to do so. The rights of minority communities cannot be protected unless there is accurate data. For Pakistan to uphold the relevant constitutional guarantees in letter and spirit, the authorities need to identify specific social sections which stand to benefit from these provisions. Abolishing this prerequisite will not strengthen minority representation. The solution lies not in divisions but in recognition and respect.

Having said that, the discomfort, even insecurity, of some citizens cannot be overlooked. In a world where one’s identity often comes with social and sometimes political implications, stating one’s own religion can be an unsettling experience. However, such discomfort should be seen as a sad drawback of the democratic culture and not as a flaw in the Constitution. Democracy is not a cure for collective prejudice. It is the most potent way to confront injustice.

The issue is not that legal protections for religious minorities are inconsistent, but that the social environment often lacks tolerance which, if left unchecked, will continue to erode safety. Democratic systems are defined not just by the rules that govern them but also by the attitudes of the people who are a part of them. When the people approach democratic systems with an understanding of how they work, the experience is anything but oppressive. It is marked by a sense of belonging and protection. The intention of stating one’s own religion is not to separate in an ‘us vs them’ fashion. The intention is to prevent ‘them’ from being absorbed into a system dominated by ‘us’. Our minorities, often at risk of being erased from the table, are made visible through identification and constitutional guarantees that are few and far between.

These safeguards, however, are far from hypothetical. Minority lawmakers have been able to raise important issues in parliament, including discriminatory laws, forced conversions, curriculum reforms and the protection of religious sites. This has helped shape national debates precisely because the Constitution has chosen recognition over erasure.

Unless a system of equivalent efficacy is in place, it is neither wise nor possible for the country to halt the registration of religious identity in present times because the system of reserved seats would cease to exist. Reform of the system is possible and crucial, particularly in matters of enha­ncing the safeguards for privacy and ad­­m­inistrative efficien­­cy. Reform should, however, strengthen the system of representation not undermine it.

Equality does not mean treating unequal realities as if they are the same. Protecting minorities requires affirmative action, not neutrality.

Reserved seats and verified identity ensure that every community, regardless of its size, has a stake in national decision-making.

It must be understood, therefore, that declaring religion while voting is not a judgement. It is a constitutional imperative as well as a statement of the country’s commitment to an inclusive democracy, and the recognition of the reality that representation should not be left to chance. Articles 51 and 106 are not merely a set of legal provisions. This is a nation’s promise that no citizen shall be politically invisible.

A mature democracy does not fear identity, it accommodates, protects and manages it with care. In this light, the requirement of declaring religion is not a barrier. The provision serves as a bridge between the ideal of a representative democracy and the means necessary for the implementation of this ideal.

The writer is a law student at the University of London.

Published in Dawn, February 24th, 2026

if you want to get more information about this news then click on below link

More Detail