Equal Rights for Iraqi Women Now!
The Washington Times reports that Iraqi women are increasingly worried that the United States is not doing enough to ensure that the new Iraqi constitution ensures equal rights for women. Congressional Quarterly reports that a bi-partisan group of 11 female U.S. Senators just “sent a letter to President Bush expressing concern that drafts of a new Iraq constitution could wind up largely excluding women from government.” (subscription required).
There are essentially two major issues. Should the Iraqi constitution guarantee equal rights before the law and make clear that equal rights trumps the Islamic Shariah law, which traditionally subordinates women to men? Yes. Should the constitution guarantee that women make up a certain portion of the Iraqi parliament? No. I can’t see any way such a requirement could work without infinging on the right of voters to elect who they want to office. (I admit, however, that I haven't thought about this long enough to say I'm 100% opposed. So, if people have arguments in defense of such a quota, please share them in the comment section).
I question the whole legitimacy, however, of the process through which the new constitution is being developed. The process for developing the interim constitution was great. The interim government, composed of a coalition of groups, was charged with drafting a temporary constitution until elections could be held. Elected officials would then develop a permanent constitution. Since members of the interim government knew they might not be the same people running the elected government, they took care to restrain the power of the government. The new constitution, however, is being designed by the very people who will run the government in the future. They have little incentive to restrain government or the power of elected officials. News reports suggest that the final constitution will grant much more power to the government than the interim constitution. Of course, one could argue that a constitution developed by officials elected by the Iraqi people is much more legitimate than one developed by people appointed by U.S. military officials, even if it does give the state more power. On the other hand, why kill tens of thousands of Iraqis in the name of freedom and then not guarantee the survivors their freedom? Shouldn't equality and religous freedom have been guaranteed before handing government over to the people, especially since "the people" have a history of religous intolerance and oppression of women?
“We are deeply concerned that provisions being considered for inclusion in the Iraqi draft constitution may jeopardize the rights of Iraqi women,” said the letter, which warned that the current draft would not ensure “significant representation” of women in Iraq’s parliament.
“We strongly believe that Iraqi women must have every opportunity to participate in all levels of Iraqi government so that they can ensure that any laws passed by the Iraqi government will not take away their rights or relegate them to second-tier status,” the letter said. It was signed by all nine Democratic women in the Senate and by two of the five GOP female senators, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.
The senators said the transitional law provides more protections for women than the draft constitution. Whereas the interim law sets the goal of providing Iraqi women 25 percent of the seats in the transitional assembly, “we understand the draft would not include language ensuring the significant representation of women in the parliament,” the senators state.
There are essentially two major issues. Should the Iraqi constitution guarantee equal rights before the law and make clear that equal rights trumps the Islamic Shariah law, which traditionally subordinates women to men? Yes. Should the constitution guarantee that women make up a certain portion of the Iraqi parliament? No. I can’t see any way such a requirement could work without infinging on the right of voters to elect who they want to office. (I admit, however, that I haven't thought about this long enough to say I'm 100% opposed. So, if people have arguments in defense of such a quota, please share them in the comment section).
I question the whole legitimacy, however, of the process through which the new constitution is being developed. The process for developing the interim constitution was great. The interim government, composed of a coalition of groups, was charged with drafting a temporary constitution until elections could be held. Elected officials would then develop a permanent constitution. Since members of the interim government knew they might not be the same people running the elected government, they took care to restrain the power of the government. The new constitution, however, is being designed by the very people who will run the government in the future. They have little incentive to restrain government or the power of elected officials. News reports suggest that the final constitution will grant much more power to the government than the interim constitution. Of course, one could argue that a constitution developed by officials elected by the Iraqi people is much more legitimate than one developed by people appointed by U.S. military officials, even if it does give the state more power. On the other hand, why kill tens of thousands of Iraqis in the name of freedom and then not guarantee the survivors their freedom? Shouldn't equality and religous freedom have been guaranteed before handing government over to the people, especially since "the people" have a history of religous intolerance and oppression of women?
posted by Cicero @ 8/05/2005
< Home>