How political decision-making remains concentrated among established elites, limiting meaningful participation and influence for young and ordinary citizens.

Almost every one of us learns the meaning of democracy at an early age: government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The phrase, famously associated with former US President Abraham Lincoln, captures a simple but powerful idea: citizens should have a meaningful say in how their country is governed.

In a democracy, people vote, elect representatives, and expect those representatives to make decisions in the public interest. Political parties compete for support, candidates promise reforms, and election campaigns offer citizens an opportunity to influence the direction of their country.

But there is another side to this story:

• What happens when ordinary citizens can vote but struggle to become candidates themselves?
•  What happens when young people fill political rallies, run election campaigns, and promote party messages on social media, yet have little influence over who receives a party ticket or makes decisions within the party?

These questions are particularly important in Pakistan, where electoral politics has continued alongside periods of military rule, political instability, and institutional disruption.

Pakistan has held 12 general elections between 1970 and 2024, according to the country’s election history. Each election has provided an opportunity for citizens to choose their representatives. Yet elections alone cannot tell us how equally political power is distributed, or whether people from different economic and social backgrounds have a fair chance to participate in decision-making.

The question, therefore, is not simply who wins an election, it is who gets the opportunity to contest one, who decides which candidates are nominated, and whose interests ultimately shape public policy.

Electoral politics: The promise and the reality

During election campaigns, political parties across Pakistan promise better education, employment opportunities, affordable healthcare, economic stability, and a brighter future for young people. These issues matter to millions of citizens, particularly those struggling with rising living costs and limited opportunities.

However, there is an important difference between asking people to support a political party and allowing them to influence its decisions.

A young party worker may spend months organizing rallies, distributing campaign materials, managing social media accounts, and persuading voters. A university student may develop practical proposals for education reform, digital governance, or climate action. A small business owner may understand the challenges faced by local entrepreneurs better than many established politicians.

Yet none of these contributions necessarily gives them a meaningful role in selecting candidates, setting party priorities, or deciding who will represent their community in parliament.

This is where political exclusion begins. It does not always mean that people are formally prohibited from participating. Sometimes, the barriers are less visible: a lack of money, limited access to influential networks, centralized party leadership, or the absence of transparent procedures for selecting candidates.

Research on political recruitment in Pakistan has highlighted the importance of established networks, family connections, and informal political relationships in shaping political careers. When access to leadership depends heavily on these factors, elections may remain competitive while opportunities to enter politics are unevenly distributed.

A young country with an older political structure

Pakistan has one of the world’s youngest populations. The United Nations Population Fund has reported that roughly two-thirds of the country’s population is under the age of 30. Young people are not a small section of society waiting for their turn to participate. They are a major part of Pakistan’s present and future.

Their political importance is also reflected in voter registration. The Election Commission of Pakistan’s data for December 2023 showed that voters aged 18 to 35 accounted for approximately 45 percent of registered voters. 

These figures should prompt an important question: if young people represent such a large share of the electorate, why does their presence in political decision-making remain limited?

The answer is not that young people lack political interest or ability. Many participate actively in political campaigns, public discussions, student organizations, community initiatives, and online debates. Their engagement, however, does not automatically translate into representation within elected institutions.

A country cannot fully benefit from its young population if young people are treated primarily as a source of votes, campaign volunteers, or social media support instead of being recognized as potential decision-makers.

Youth are welcomed into campaigns, but are they welcomed into power?

Political parties have long recognized the importance of attracting young voters. Different parties have used youth wings, student networks, public rallies, digital campaigns, and promises of economic opportunity to mobilize younger generations.

The Pakistan Peoples Party built a mass political movement around popular participation and social change in the late 1960s and 1970s. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz has mobilized support through its political organization, development agenda, and established electoral networks. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf brought youth mobilization and social media campaigning to the center of national political debate, particularly during the 2010s.

These examples reflect the different ways political parties have sought to connect with the public. They should not be treated as identical experiences, nor does youth mobilization by itself establish how much influence young members have within a party.

The more important question is what happens after the rally ends.

The distinction between mobilization and representation is crucial. Mobilization brings people into a political campaign. Representation gives them a meaningful voice in the decisions that affect their lives.

The 2018 initiative by the United Nations Development Programme and the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency to bring young people and representatives of major political parties together over youth priorities in election manifestos demonstrated one way to create such engagement. The challenge is to make this participation a regular part of political decision-making rather than an occasional consultation.

When politics becomes a family business

One of the most visible features of Pakistan’s electoral politics is the influence of established political families.

Political dynasties are not unique to Pakistan. They exist in democracies around the world, and a politician’s family background does not automatically make that person unqualified. Voters may support a candidate because of experience, public service, political beliefs, or a family’s history in a constituency.

The concern arises when family connections become a recurring advantage in gaining party nominations, accessing resources, building political networks, and retaining influence across generations.

Research published in Pakistan Social Sciences Review in 2020 examined the relationship between political dynasties and candidate selection in Pakistan, using evidence from the 2013 general election. The study discussed how established political backgrounds and electoral calculations can influence the nomination process.

These patterns can make it difficult for newcomers to compete on equal terms. A person entering politics for the first time may need to build a constituency network, establish credibility, find campaign volunteers, and secure funding from scratch. Someone from an established political family may already have access to many of these resources.

This does not mean that all established politicians are ineffective or that every newcomer would necessarily make a better representative. It means that the opportunity to compete should not depend disproportionately on inherited political access.

Democracy works best when political experience can be earned through public service and demonstrated ability, rather than being treated as an advantage passed down through generations.

Money: The cost of entering politics

Even when a person has the motivation and ability to contest an election, financial constraints can become a major obstacle.

Election campaigns require organization, transportation, communication, public meetings, volunteers, and outreach to voters across a constituency. Candidates also need time and resources to develop a recognizable public profile. For people with limited personal savings or access to donors, these demands can be difficult to meet.

Pakistan’s Elections Act, 2017, sets statutory limits on candidates’ election expenses. Section 132 specifies limits of Rs. 4 million for a National Assembly seat, Rs. 2 million for a provincial assembly seat, and Rs. 1.5 million for a Senate seat.

These are legal limits, not estimates of what every campaign actually costs. Nevertheless, they illustrate that election campaigns operate within a financial framework that candidates must be able to navigate.

A spending limit alone does not guarantee equal access to political competition. Candidates still differ in their ability to raise funds, mobilize supporters, obtain campaign services, and maintain political networks. The legal limits also need effective monitoring and enforcement to serve their intended purpose.

For an ordinary citizen, entering electoral politics may mean leaving paid employment, relying on family savings, or asking friends and supporters to contribute. For a person with established business interests, substantial resources, or a long-standing political network, the same process may be considerably easier.

The result is a potential barrier to representation for people whose experiences are important to public policy but whose financial circumstances limit their political opportunities.

A farmer who understands the challenges of agricultural pricing, a teacher who knows the weaknesses of public education, or a young entrepreneur who faces barriers to starting a business may have valuable ideas. But expertise and lived experience do not automatically provide the resources needed to compete for elected office.

What happened to the graduation requirement?

Pakistan’s political history offers another useful example of how eligibility rules can shape access to elected office.

Under the electoral framework introduced for the 2002 general elections, candidates for parliament were required to hold a bachelor’s degree or an accepted equivalent qualification. The requirement was controversial because it excluded people who did not possess the prescribed qualification, even though they could otherwise have substantial public support or political experience.

The degree requirement did not remain a permanent condition for parliamentary candidacy. It was not applied in the 2008 general election, and the legal framework subsequently changed. Today’s eligibility requirements must be considered under the Constitution and the applicable election laws, rather than the former graduation rule.

The episode raises a broader question about representation: how should a democracy balance the qualifications required for public office with the principle that citizens from different educational and social backgrounds should have a fair opportunity to represent their communities?

Education matters, legislators need access to reliable information, an understanding of public policy, and the ability to scrutinize legislation. But formal education is not the only source of knowledge or public leadership. A degree requirement can exclude capable people without necessarily guaranteeing better governance.

The more sustainable approach is to strengthen civic education, legislative training, policy research, and institutional support for elected representatives, while applying constitutional eligibility requirements fairly and consistently.

Who votes, and who benefits from the system?

A voter may carefully compare party manifestos, assess a candidate’s record, and choose the person they believe will best represent the constituency. But the voter usually makes that choice from a list of candidates who have already passed through nomination and electoral processes.

This means political inclusion must be examined at more than one stage. Who has access to party membership and leadership? Who participates in selecting candidates? Who can afford to run? And whose concerns are reflected in legislative priorities after the election?

Political manifestos and the missing middle

Election manifestos are important because they communicate what political parties intend to do if elected. They also provide a basis against which citizens can assess a party’s performance.

In Pakistan, manifestos frequently address employment, education, healthcare, economic development, and opportunities for young people. These are important priorities. However, meaningful inclusion requires more than mentioning a group in a policy document.

Young people, lower-income households, small business owners, teachers, farmers, workers, and people from marginalized communities need opportunities to contribute to the development of these policies. Their participation should begin before a manifesto is finalized and continue after a government takes office.

For example, a youth employment policy could benefit from consultations with graduates, vocational trainees, employers, and young people who are unable to access higher education. An agricultural policy could draw on the experiences of small farmers as well as large landowners and agricultural businesses. Education reform should include teachers, parents, students, and local communities.

The purpose is not to assume that every member of a social group shares the same views. It is to ensure that people affected by public decisions have a genuine opportunity to contribute to them.

Consultation also needs to be meaningful. If parties collect recommendations but never explain which proposals they adopted, which they rejected, or why, participation risks becoming a symbolic exercise.

Several practical steps could help.

First, strengthen internal democracy within political parties. Party members should have meaningful opportunities to participate in leadership selection, policy discussions, and candidate nominations. Transparent criteria and competitive procedures could help reduce the influence of personal connections in these decisions.

Second, make political financing more transparent. Campaign spending rules should be enforced consistently, with clear public reporting and effective oversight. Parties could also explore fairer ways to support candidates who have strong community roots but limited financial resources.

Third, create lasting opportunities for youth participation. Youth wings and student organizations should not function only as campaign machinery. Young people need opportunities to develop policy proposals, hold leadership positions, participate in consultations, and influence decisions within political organizations and local government.

Fourth, strengthen local democracy. Elected local governments can bring decision-making closer to communities. When they have clear responsibilities, adequate resources, and meaningful public accountability, they can provide more opportunities for ordinary citizens to engage with governance.

Fifth, make manifestos accountable to the public. Political parties should consult communities while developing their policy commitments and publish regular updates on progress after elections. This would help citizens assess performance against stated goals instead of relying only on campaign promises.

Finally, invest in civic education and participation beyond elections. Schools, universities, community organizations, and public institutions can help people understand their rights, develop the confidence to participate, and learn how to engage constructively with decision-makers. Accountability Lab Pakistan’s work on creating spaces for young people to practice democracy points to the importance of making participation a regular experience rather than an activity limited to election periods.[5]

These changes will not eliminate every inequality in political life. However, they could make participation more accessible, improve accountability, and broaden the range of people who can contribute to public decisions.

About the Author:

Abdul Aleem is Program Officer at Accountability Lab Pakistan and can be reached at aleem@accountabilitylab.org