I touched on this a month or two back, but here’s a real example that will bring it to a head: to what extent does the US — in Iraq, on the ground — put its foot down about proposed legislation by Iraqi authorities? And on what basis?
About 100 Iraqi women led by a minister protested in central Baghdad against a Governing Council proposal to scrap the secular family affairs code and place it under Muslim religious jurisdiction.
[…] Iraq’s 1959 civil code governing family affairs was considered the most progressive in the Middle East, making polygamy difficult and guaranteeing women’s custody rights in the case of divorce.
Since 1991, Saddam’s secular regime made some changes to the code to bring it more in line with Muslim laws but its essence remained the same.
Much of this has to do with the influence of (or pandering to) Shi’ite conservatives; Shi’ites as a whole are a majority of the population, and their clerics hold significant social power.
The question is — and this is exclusive of how we got into this situation — what should Paul Bremer do now? In theory, he can veto anything the GC does. Does he torque off the clerics (and the GC) by throwing around that weight? Or does he accede to what in US eyes would be a regression to the mistreatment of women in many other neighboring Muslim countries? Does protecting democracy by protecting the half of the population that is women trump self-determination by the Governing Council? Which values are more important — and how much force (political, at least) is the US willing to employ over this point?
This isn’t Afghanistan, where there’s an actual independent government. This isn’t Iran, or Saudi, where at best we just cluck our tongues and register protests over the treatment of women under sharia. This is a place that is, in many ways, in our hands to recreate — or at least try to. Which values trump which here? If you were advising Paul Bremer (or George Bush), what would you suggest?
(via Roger L. Simon)
I’d tell him to kill it. Not that it will help once whatever government they’re going to get is up and running without us — they’ll just institute sharia law then.
For all the bad that Hussein was, he didn’t tamper with these laws. Oh, sure, there were the rape rooms, etc, but somehow, this wasn’t affected. He knew the value of the entire culture being educated and working.
It might help. It might not. Some of it depends on what formal institutions we engender. And given that half the population is women, if they can be mobilized, in theory something like this should happen.
But, ultimately, it will be up to them. Which is how it should be, even if the results aren’t what you or I would like to see.
Yes, Hussein maintained the 1959 civil law; Iraq was a much more secular society that many of its neighbors, even then. And Hussein clearly didn’t want religious law (and religious leaders) to challenge his authority, even if he did actually make *some* mods (at least according to the AP story above, as quoted. Bully for him. Too bad he didn’t know the value of an entire culture not living in terror.
I think under the circumstances, it’s worth looking at how an Iraqi woman sees the issue.
http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com
Indeed.