“It’s like if you are sick, you go to a doctor, not some amateur.”
Last month, Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, signed a bill into law that effectively legalized marital rape. The three main statutes are as follows: a) a man may deny his wife food for refusing sex, b) women must obtain their husbands permission in order to work or go to school, and c) denies women the right to use makeup or dress in any way that is contrary to her husband’s desires. Mr. Karzai's main motivation in legalizing this bill was to appease the Muslim Shiite clergy since this law only applies in Shiite dominated regions. Many proponents state that this law is much more lenient than the restrictions imposed by the predominantly Sunni Taliban; however, the Taliban are no longer in power. Comparing laws created under a democratically elected government to those created under the authoritarian rule of the tyrannical regime is hardly justified: any comparison that highlights a similarity between the two is simply intolerable.
While this law apparently reflects the written words of the Koran; no cleric interviewed could point out the religious underpinnings. Like many laws in Middle Eastern countries, it instead codifies traditional practices as religious decrees, subjugating one voting demographic and effectively creating second class citizens. Women are already denied various social services like education and health-care (the male literacy rate is almost four times higher at 42%). By restricting the freedoms of even a small segment of the population under the guise of religion, Mr. Karzai is allowing for a dangerous precedent to once again take shape.
Even scarier than the establishment of such a precedence is the support the law has with the male population. When some three-hundred young women tried to peacefully walk to the Parliament in protest of the law, they were met by a mob of almost a thousand men who tried to prevent them from reaching their destination. They were aided in this matter by the Afghan police who kept the two groups separate through the use of force and physical barriers. The passage of this law highlights the inherent reason for the existence of separate legislative and executive branches and the failure in Afghanistan of the checks and balances so carefully crafted into the new constitution. Karzai, by neglecting his ability to veto, he has effectively legalized the tyranny of the female minority by the male majority.
Due to the international outcry, the law is currently under review by Mr. Karzai’s government. However, by initially bowing to the wishes of the clergy, Mr. Karzai has lessened the power that the executive post should hold, both in perception and practice. It is reminiscent of Pakistan’s current imposition of Islamic law in the Swat region to restore peace to the Taliban stronghold leading to numerous women’s rights violations. By allowing fundamental extremists to rule the region, they have left women without the support of a government that will fight for their rights. While Afghanistan is not at this point yet, the religious clerics who lead the madrasas – known for being breeding grounds for terrorist activity - are extremely active within the new government and are a compelling force in leading male public opinion. In such an atmosphere, it is absolutely imperative that the position of the executive not be lessened; Mr. Karzai must command his strength and hold his own in the face of adversity to support every one of his constituents.
Sources:
- Dexter Filkins’ Article: Afghan Women Protest New Law on Home Life
Well, for such a short article I feel as though I have a lot to say about it, so I will try my best to be concise and coherent.
ReplyDeleteI suppose first is that you seem to be missing something larger in your post. As I see it, Karzai is not weakening the executive office through passage of such laws as this. The executive office, the legislature, and the whole government is weakened every day by their complete inability to provide some of the most basic services (security, water, education, etc.) to the Afghan people. Maybe Karzai capitulated when he put this law through, I don't know what his personal convictions are, but it seems more likely that it was a politically calculated move designed to increase support for him and the Afghan government in areas where they need it most or to begin a process of appeasing the Taliban to forge some kind of coalition or peaceful coexistence. The Taliban really IS in power in many parts of the country, leading right up to the capital city, but not because the Afghan government "allows" them to rule. They do not have the military capacity to defeat them or the public infrastructure to undermine support for them. It is an extremely precarious situation and I think the Afghan government is struggling to find ways to hold onto what power they still have with this law, especially in an election year!
Now, I am no scholar of the Qur'an or Islamic Law, but I seem to know something that none of the "scholars interviewed" know? This law fits perfectly with traditional interpretations of Islamic Law that have been a part of the culture for centuries. There are many Reformers who believe differently, and who want to change this character of Islamic Law, but you can find belief in traditional interpretations in as modern a place as London, England. As unseemly as it is to our Western sensibilities, this is part of the Muslim tradition, and until all (or most, at least) of Afghanistan moves towards a more Reformer (or maybe Secularist, so as to separate religious laws from secular ones) character, this law makes sense for them. I am not suggesting that we should all be so lucky as to adopt such a law, rather that this law is their decision. The international community spoke up and they have decided to review the law, but at the end of the day this is their sovereignty.
Connecting that with my previous point, it is exactly because there is so much support for such traditional interpretation of Sharia (among women, too) that this law makes sense. The government is trying to appeal to that sensibility in the pursuit of power that they are rapidly losing.
None of this is to suggest that I agree with Traditional Sharia or this law in particular, but it is up to the Afghan people and their elected government to decide what is right for them. There is dissent, which means that change could be on the horizon, but there is a tremendous amount of support still, so it hasn't happened, yet.
Finally, your link to Dexter Filkins' article is incorrect. Try linking to this URL instead: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/world/asia/16afghan.html