January 16, 2004
Democracy in Iraq?
A few days ago, Juan Cole reported that the IRC in Iraq had voted to change Iraq's laws so they would now be governed by religious leaders rather than leaving them up to the secular laws that had been in force before. Large numbers of Iraqi women protested this change as the goal is to deny them a first class role and status before the law.
The Baghdad/London daily az-Zaman reports that there were widespread demonstrations on Tuesday by women against the order decreeing abolition of Iraq's uniform civil codes in favor of religious law, which they say "repeals women's rights" in Iraq. This story appears to have been completely missed so far by the Western news media, which is a great shame. Women are important, too, guys.
Women activists representing 80 women's organizations (including the female Interim Minister of Public Works!) gathered at Firdaws Square in downtown Baghdad to protest the IGC decree, issued three days ago. Minister of Public Works Nasreen Barwari complained to az-Zaman about the lack of "transparency" and of "democratic consultation" in the promulgation of the decree by the IGC. Protesters carried placards with phrases like "No to discrimination, No to differentiating women and men in our New Iraq." and "We reject Decree 137, which sanctifies religious communalism." Activist Zakiyah Khalifah complained that the law would weaken Iraqi families.
Riverbend gives her perspective today about these ominous changes.
This is completely unfair to women specifically. Under the Iraqi constitution, men and women are equal. Under our past secular family law (which has been in practice since the '50s) women had unalterable divorce, marriage, inheritance, custody, and alimony rights. All of this is going to change.
I'll give an example of what this will mean. One infamous practice brought to Iraq by Iranian clerics was the 'zawaj muta'a', which when translated by the clerics means 'temporary marriage'. The actual translation is 'pleasure marriage'- which is exactly what it is. It works like this: a consenting man and woman go to a cleric who approves of temporary marriage and they agree upon a period of time during which the marriage will last. The man pays the woman a 'mahar' or dowry and during the duration of the marriage (which can be anything from an hour, to a week, a month, etc.) the man has full marital rights. Basically, it's a form of prostitution that often results in illegitimate children and a spread of STDs.
First Lady Laura Bush gave a weekly presidential address that discussed the role of women and why the repressive Taliban government is wrong. Although her role has been somewhat subdued so far regarding women's rights, she has expressed her belief that women should be first class citizens. In light of this, I'd be interested in getting her take on how well we are doing at bringing Democracy to Iraq.
Update: Juan Cole's post this morning talks about large demonstrations in Basra demanding real elections. Check out this quote:
The Bush administration rather cynically made providing democracy in Iraq its fallback justification for an Iraq war. First, the primary justification, of weapons of mass destruction, fell through. Now the fallback position is creating its own problems, since from an administration point of view the Iraqis are taking it 'way too seriously!
The Shiites who are following the lead of Sistani are trying to make sure their chance for self-determination does not get bought by the highest bidder (Chalabi) or sold down the river.
Posted by Mary at January 16, 2004 03:29 AM | TrackBackIt's a shame that the Bush government is letting something like that happening. So much about bringing democracy...
And again, the american media/press is only talking about subjects that bring headlines, under the cover of censorship. I feel really sorry about all these brave and honest people in that country.