A Forum on Human Rights and Democracy in Iran - Gozaar: Women and the Constitutional Movement  ,Men’s Chaste Wives and Daughters

Women and the Constitutional Movement  ,Men’s Chaste Wives and Daughters
================================================================================
karm on 16/08/2010 21:33:00

The Constitutional Revolution challenged absolute rule and made rulers
accountable to people’s representatives. Now that we look back at the past and
examine it judiciously, we realize that the issuance of the decree for
constitutional monarchy by the Qajar king was a tremendous feat. Although the
Constitutional Movement was plagued by a capitulating mentality, the siege by a
large army and the provocations of Sheikh Fazlolah Nouri, it finally triumphed
after staging a massive resistance. That is why we can now speak of
Constitutional Movement and a sharia-based system of government that tried, and
is trying, to sabotage it.
In a society which was illiterate and extremely religious and traditional, the
aspirations of the leaders who belonged to the two camps of west-inspired
democrats and traditional clergy attracted the people who longed for justice and
the rule of law. This attraction was so strong that women, from under their
chadors, could see the horizon that was unfolding before them; this encouraged
and emboldened a large segment of society. We cannot say that the role of women
was equal to the impact of men, but we must stress that this was the first time
in contemporary Iranian history that women could enter the arena of political
participation and voice their demands. The small number of literate women, who
were connected to families close to the court, admired the Constitutional
Movement which had released them from confinement in their houses and the
historical and traditional contempt they had experienced. An illiterate women
population, that was previously unaware of its fundamental rights, was investing
its hope in a “House of Justice” that would restore justice and put an end
to inequality at home and in the hands of state. Perhaps, they did not suspect
that domestic violence would turn into a sensitive issue in the world one day.
Nevertheless, the first legislatures, which viewed women as minors and demented,
deprived women of the right to vote or be parliamentary representatives. But
even this parliament was not tolerated by Mohammad Ali Shah who, encouraged by
Sheikh Fazlolah Nouri, bombarded it ruthlessly. But when Mohammad Ali Shah saw
how his monarchy was on the verge of demolishment by the people’s councils
throughout the country and received telegraph after telegraph that were
clamoring for his removal, he abandoned the sheikh. He claimed he had bombarded
the parliament because Sheikh Fazlolah Nouri had convinced him that the
constitutionalists would spread heresy and unruliness in the county and soil
women’s virtues. By claiming that he had been a puppet in the sheikh’s
hands, Mohammad Ali Shah could cling to his throne a little longer.
Now, 31 years after the establishment of a sharia system in Iran, which also
includes some principles of Constitutional Movement, we look at the situation
from another perspective. Entering discussions about women’s rights in Iranian
society has been an extremely sensitive issue. If the first parliaments after
the Constitutional Revolution had addressed women’s rights, we could have
argued that the growth of women’s movement in Iran was the consequence of
their efforts. However, they did not pay any attention to the issue of women’s
rights, either because they were afraid or adhered to a type of misogynistic
belief. On the other hand, although the people’s representatives in parliament
had declared their allegiance to the Constitutional Movement, they could never
acknowledge women as equal human beings. Each had a wife or few wives at home,
with very little rights, who performed the duties of a slave woman. They valued
women on the basis of their lineage, and if women belonged to aristocratic
families, they were respected more. But under no circumstances, women were taken
seriously by the parliaments of Constitutional Movement. Women were kept chaste
and entrapped at home, and the parliamentary representatives wished to
perpetuate this condition forever. The female poets, orators and thinkers were
expressing their pain and agony in the publications of that period. The
Constitutional Movement was a sapling that, whenever it was on the brink of
turning into a prolific tree—a tree that bore its fruits in the form of
women’s rights—it would bend and break completely. The story of misogyny did
not end with the hanging of Sheikh Fazlolah Nouri. In fact, his hanging was the
most damaging mistake the constitutionalists made. The sheikh had been born and
raised in the background of Islamic history; he was the symbol of an idea which
viewed women’s chasteness [and submissiveness] as the sign of men’s dignity
and religious faith. Despite their diverse tendencies, all constitutionalists
advocated this outlook and did not have any fundamental differences with the
sheikh regarding this issue. Even if we suppose that the constitutionalists had
opposed the sheikh and accepted the right of women to education (justifying it
by referring to Islamic texts, traditions and stories as a precaution to
maintain their own Islamic credentials), they would have undermined this right
with so many clauses and qualifications to make its realization impossible.
In the backward Iranian society, where the Constitutional Revolution was steered
to victory by male leaders, laws were particularly void of any consideration
that could impact the situation of women. It could not be otherwise. Religious
perspective dominated the relationships between woman, her family members and
society. However, the Constitutional Movement provided educated and professional
women with a possibility they had been waiting for; they could enter the
parliament as people’s representatives. In the eyes of those who knew
suffering, the inferiority of women at home and in society could not be
eradicated without their participation in the parliament. Against the backdrop
of political despotism which had dominated the pyramid of power and religious
reaction which had orchestrated its efforts from Qom and Najaf to guard
patriarchy, only some aristocratic women, who were backed by powerful and
influential men, could voice the women’s demands little by little. Women
entered universities and some areas of workforce. In more than one hundred years
that has passed since the Constitutional Revolution, women have made significant
strides in the field of education, employment and social activities. Even in the
system of Islamic Republic, which has tried with all its might to implement the
views of Sheikh Fazlolah Nouri, women have gained tremendous achievements in
schools, universities and professional centers. Despite being wrapped in
compulsory hijabs, they no longer accept the respect and individual or social
rights that emanate from their status as men’s chaste wives and daughters. The
thought of Sheikh Fazlolah Nouri has nourished a regime that negates women’s
most basic rights. Under the threats and insults of this regime, women have been
flogged, stoned to death and compelled to observe Islamic codes of behavior. Not
only has the Islamic Republic refused to hear the women’s voices, some women
have also been murdered by the criminals who belong to the circles linked to the
government. The Islamic regime puts a price on women’s bodies and body members
and prevents them from entering the centers of decision-making. Despite all
this, women have become a thorn in the side of sharia-seeking men; they demand
the right to their bodies. But the women’s demands in the spheres of family,
inheritance and participation in decision-making centers have remained
unchanged.
In the last 31 years, the condition of women has regressed in the hands of the
sheikh’s genuine disciples who have become legislators. And yet, women have
put up an extraordinary resistance by refusing to succumb to the laws and
lawmakers. It is amazing that their demands are still those that were expressed
at the beginning of Constitutional Movement. Of course, since women in the past
31 years have been stripped of many rights that they gained in the last century,
the number of these demands has multiplied. Women have sneered at the will of
lawmakers by challenging the laws that do not reflect the realities of today’s
society. Women constitute a large percentage of Iran’s educated population.
They have become active in businesses by utilizing their own resources. Even the
women who are not Muslim are forced to observe hijab. The regime has tried to
transform women into egg-laying chickens and plans to give cash rewards to
fathers for every birth. Putting a price on woman’s body members is in such a
way that one eye of a man is equal to two eyes of a woman and...
One hundred and four years after the issuance of the edict for constitution, the
women’s demands have remained the same. That is not to say that they have no
new demands. The annulment of laws that are related to the murder of women,
along with proper punishments for the injuries that are inflicted on women’s
bodies by males in their households, are the new demands that did not exist 104
years ago. Women insist on being provided with the opportunity to become
president if elected by voters. They demand to be allowed to enter all governing
bodies legally. They demand free elections so that female representatives from
all social and intellectual layers can enter the parliament. They do not wish
their rights as parliamentary representatives to be limited to a handful of
women who are even worse than the sheikh in equating women’s happiness with
slavery, inferiority and being a rival wife.
The legal demands of Iranian women, who constitute a large percentage of
university graduates, are the same that existed 104 years ago. In addition, the
age of criminal responsibility for girls is reduced to 9 while flogging and
stoning to death are also added to it. This is in spite of the fact that the
Iranian society of 104 years ago was an illiterate, rural and extremely
religious and traditional society. In such background, the Constitutional
Movement became possible after the emergence of printing houses, publication of
some books, and the intelligent coalition of clerics and intellectuals. Today,
notwithstanding the high number of worldly and educated people and new social
realities (such as literacy, urbanity, familiarity with political subtleties and
the existence of clerics who are aware of injustice), Iranian society cannot
change the course of the fate that runs counter to the ideals of Constitutional
Movement.
It is unimaginable how much Iran and the world have changed since 1906, but the
demands of Iranian women have stayed the same; the equal rights that they seek
are primarily in relation to the husband and the son and include the right to
divorce, the right to life without constrictions, the right to sing and play
musical instruments, the right to become an ambassador or consul-general, the
right to leave the country freely, the right to bestow citizenship on one’s
child, the right to choose one’s type of dress, the right to enter all arenas
of government, the right to form civil organizations and institutions to mediate
between women and the government by relying on freedom of expression, and the
right to one’s body which will prevent men from speaking of woman as their
chaste possession. In one word, what we demand is equality according to the
international norms of human rights. The Constitutional Revolution opened the
way for the adaptation of laws to society’s secular needs. The impact of
Constitutional Revolution is so serious on the history of Iran’s
transformations that the Constitution of Islamic Republic, despite all its
shortcomings, has utilized its model. The impasse of legitimacy and the crisis
of popular support threaten the Islamic Republic even more than military attack.
This situation stems from the fact that the Iranian regime has turned its back
on the tradition of Constitutional Movement which was the result of coalition
and reconciliation of clerics with the individuals who had studied in the west.
The Islamic regime has refused to negotiate with the representatives of current
protesting movement. It seems happy to have suppressed all protestors, but it
neglects the fact that the leaders of any future regime will emerge from among
the critics who are in prison now. In Iran with its particular historical
background and other undemocratic countries, prisons are like universities that
produce future leaders; and these future leaders, in turn, will reproduce the
same cycle of violence. That was also the case with the prisoners in the
Shah’s jails who began to kill their opponents after the revolution’s
victory. What are the ultimate benefits of repeating the same history for the
people and the regime? We must read the Constitutional Revolution once again.
Let us push aside the narrative of the shah and the sheikh and, instead, stress
the people’s rage and protest that led to the hanging of the sheikh. The
sheikh’s supporters were unable to do anything, but his ideas survived and we
ended up where we are at the moment.