Gender-Responsive AI Governance in Pakistan: Legal Gaps, Algorithmic Bias, and Democratic Rights
Author: Ammara Kalsoom
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly influences political communication, digital governance, and democratic participation in Pakistan, yet its gendered consequences remain insufficiently addressed within existing legal and policy frameworks. This study examines how algorithmic systems, automated moderation, synthetic media, and data-driven political communication reinforce structural inequalities affecting women’s participation in digital political spaces. Drawing upon doctrinal legal analysis, feminist legal theory, and comparative governance perspectives, the discussion evaluates constitutional protections, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act 2025 alongside international standards relating to ethical AI governance. The analysis explains that women politicians, journalists, parliamentarians, and activists experience disproportionate exposure to cyberstalking, coordinated harassment, deepfake manipulation, reputational attacks, and algorithmically amplified misogyny, all of which weaken democratic inclusion and discourage political engagement. Existing cyber governance mechanisms remain technologically limited because they primarily address conventional cybercrime while failing to regulate algorithmic discrimination, platform accountability, and AI-generated abuse. The study further highlights tensions between expanding state regulation of digital content and the protection of constitutional freedoms concerning equality, dignity, and political expression. It concludes that Pakistan requires transparent, rights-based, and gender-responsive AI governance capable of protecting women’s digital participation while preserving democratic accountability within rapidly evolving technological environments. The research also emphasises stronger institutional oversight, accessible reporting mechanisms, algorithmic transparency obligations, and international cooperation to address technologyfacilitated gender-based violence effectively across contemporary political platforms.
Keywords
Gendered AI Governance, Algorithmic Bias, Feminist AI, Technology-Facilitated
Gender-Based Violence, Digital Democracy, Cyber Governance, PECA 2016, AI Ethics
References
Baig, K., & Jafary, H. A. (2025). Cyber harassment and online violence against women in Pakistan:
Legal gaps and enforcement challenges. Journal of Political Stability Archive, 3(4), 900-916.
Bardall, G., Bjarnegård, E., & Piscopo, J. M. (2020). How is political violence gendered?
Disentangling motives, forms, and impacts. Political Studies, 68(4), 916-935.
Biroli, F. (2018). Violence against women and reactions to gender equality in politics. Politics &
Gender, 14(4), 681-685.
Blitz, M. J. (2018). Lies, line drawing, and deep fake news. Okla. L. Rev., 71, 59.
Bolo Bhi. (2015). PECB2015: The story so far. https://bolobhi.org/pecb2015-the-story-so-far/.
Bolo Bhi. (2019). Note on the implementation of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016.
https://bolobhi.org/note-on-the-implementation-of-prevention-of-electronic-crimes-act2016/.
Chesney, B., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and
national security. Calif. L. Rev., 107, 1753.
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (COP), 1973 (Pakistan), arts 19 and 25.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (adopted
December 18, 1979, entered into force September 3, 1981), 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
Digital Rights Foundation. (2020). Measuring Pakistani women’s experiences of online violence
2020. https://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Hamara-InternetOnline-Harassment-Report.pdf.
Dutton, W. H., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2019). Cultural divides and digital inequalities: attitudes shaping
Internet and social media divides. Information, communication & society, 22(1), 18-38.
European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on
artificial intelligence, [2024] OJ L 1689.
Gielow Jacobs, L. (2022). Freedom of speech and regulation of fake news. The American Journal of
Comparative Law, 70(Supplement_1), i278-i311.
Gill, R., & Grint, K. (2018). Introduction the gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory and
research. In The Gender-Technology Relation (pp. 1-28). Taylor & Francis.
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden
decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
GSMA (2023). Mobile gender gap report 2023. https://www.gsma.com/wpcontent/uploads/2025/12/The-Mobile-Gender-Gap-Report-2023.pdf.
Håkansson, S. (2024). The gendered representational costs of violence against
politicians. Perspectives on Politics, 22(1), 81-96.
Hart, C. G. (2025). Tensions of Making Women’s Marginalization Salient in Men-Dominated
Workplaces. Work and Occupations, 52(3), 358-387.
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: doctrinal legal
research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83-119.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
(India).
Jipguep-Akhtar, M. (2020). Review of Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code.
Social Forces, 98(4), 1–3.
Krook, M. L., & Sanín, J. R. (2020). The cost of doing politics? Analyzing violence and harassment
against female politicians. Perspectives on Politics, 18(3), 740-755.
Levi, L. (2017). Real fake news and fake fake news. First Amend. L. Rev., 16, 232.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University Press.
Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan, PLD 1998 SC 388 (Pakistan).
Nakamura, L., & Chow-White, P. (Eds.). (2012). Race after the Internet (p. 203). New York:
Routledge.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. In Algorithms
of Oppression. New York University Press.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide.
Cambridge University Press.
O’Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens
democracy. Crown.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). What are the OECD
principles on AI? OECD Observer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1787/6ff2a1c4-en.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). OECD AI principles
overview. https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles.
Posetti, J., Shabbir, N., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K., & Aboulez, N. (2021). The chilling: Global
trends in online violence against women journalists. New York: United Nations International
Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF).
Posetti, J., Shabbir, N., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K., & Aboulez, N. (2021). The chilling: Global
trends in online violence against women journalists. New York: United Nations International
Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF).
Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Pakistan), ss. 2(iiia), 2A–2R.
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Pakistan), ss. 16, 20, 21, & 24.
Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation:
Disparateness as a precondition for individuation through relationships?. Réseaux, 177(1),
163-196.
Schroeder, J. E. (2021). Reinscribing gender: social media, algorithms, bias. Journal of Marketing
Management, 37(3-4), 376-378.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2021).
Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137.
Venturini, T., Acker, A., Plantin, J. C., Walford, T., & Crichlow, C. (2025). The Co-Constitution of
Race and Data. In The Sage Handbook of Data and Society (pp. 275-297). Sage Publications
Ltd.
Wajcman, J. (2013). TechnoFeminism. John Wiley & Sons.
Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (Eds.). (2018). Computational propaganda: Political parties,
politicians, and political manipulation on social media. Oxford University Press.
Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203-213).
Routledge.
DOI: 10.52279/jlss.08.01.147164 | 147-164 | PDF
Journal of Law and Social Studies (JLSS) is proudly powered by WordPress
