A Continuing Struggle Regarding the Status of Women: Pro-democracy Movements in the Middle East

The strong presence of women in recent pro-democracy protests Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt created an atmosphere of excitement regarding the 100th Anniversary of International Women’s Day (IWD) on March 8 this year. 

Iran in particular has seen decades of very public women’s liberation movements, exemplified by the ongoing One Million Signatures Campaign that aims to gain one million signatures to petition for a change in discriminatory laws against women.

A mural painted by the organisers of the One Million Signatures campagin

March 8 signified an opportunity to celebrate recent victories, the newfound unity between Middle Eastern men and women in the fight against oppression and inequality, and to make a public statement about the currently changeable social and political atmosphere. 

In the week leading up to IWD, however, there was a strong reminder that the recent political changes are only one step towards the desired objective of a democratic society unblemished by gender-, race-, or sexuality-based discrimination; the newfound position of Iran on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).  The CSW is a body "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," noble a purpose inconsistent with Iran’s horrendous record of upholding the most basic human rights. 

Iran’s election for the 2011-2015 position on the Commission was passed in April 2010, just a week after senior cleric and acting Friday prayer leader of Tehran, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, stated that the wearing of revealing clothes by Iranian women is to blame for the nation’s increasing number of earthquakes. 

“Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,"

Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media; A laughable but serious blow to women across the world who choose the right of self-expression and determination in the face of oppressive religious dogma. 

Understandably, the election of Iran to the CSW was passed despite stark opposition by Iranian activists for women’s rights.  A letter signed by 214 activists and endorsed by over a dozen human rights bodies was written to the UN detailing Iranian laws that demonstrate the nation’s lack of commitment to gender equality:

"Women lack the ability to choose their husbands, have no independent right to education after marriage, no right to divorce, no right to child custody, have no protection from violent treatment in public spaces, are restricted by quotas for women's admission at universities, and are arrested, beaten, and imprisoned for peacefully seeking change of such laws.”

 Iran, a country that legalizes the stoning of adulterers, the rape of virgins before execution, sigheh (temporary marriage), and forced wearing of the hijab is now to have a leading voice on global issue affecting women.  Notably, Iran does so despite having signed the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.  Such incongruence between actions and words of Iran highlights the inability of organisations such as the UN to effect real change whilst working within the constraints of the corrupt bureaucratic system of our current society.   This is just one example of the failure of the UN to act in the interests of the majority of the world’s population. 

Regarding the election of Iran to the CSW, UN defence of its decision rests on geographic principles; the principle of equitable regional representation, UN officials say, must be taken into account when offering membership. 

Acknowledging this, Iranian activists argued one representative from Asian nations, as opposed to the normal two, would be preferable to elevating Iran to the commission in light of the “the highly negative ramifications of Iran’s membership in this international body."  But it seems such recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. 

Sadly, signs of ensuing negative ramifications can already be seen.  Only months after its election to the CSW in 2010, 18-year-old Iranian Navid Mohebbi was arrested with charges of threatening national security, promoting anti-Iran propaganda, and insulting current and former leaders of Iran – a guise for the real ‘crime’ of keeping a blog supporting women’s rights. 

Navid’s crime was to be a friend to women of his country and write the about domestic violence, economic and education inequality, sex trafficking, and forced genital mutilation that is part of Iran’s current social reality. Navid’s 2010 IWD post read:

“For the women of my own country who are being brutally suppressed in the most vicious manner, I wish a society without violence, oppression and without gender-specific violence."

Following his arrest, Navid was subject to interrogation, held in solitary confinement for extended periods of time, denied legal counsel or contact with family; essentially, denied a fair trial. 

Luckily, a petition initiated by A Safe World for Women containing the signatures of 600 Change.org members was successful in suspending Navid’s three year sentence, Navid being released on Christmas Day 2010; A tribute to the effectiveness of non-violent protest in the face of grave oppression. 

It is an anomaly that a body dedicated to advocating and pursuing the advancement of women in society could appoint to its governing board a nation whose government is actively opposed to achieving such a goal. 

Yet such incongruence is to be expected under Capitalism.  Any organisation “committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights”, as the UN states they are, is doomed to fail in a society where the means of production are owned by a special few, production is based on profit not need, and workers are increasingly exploited as a means to obtain ever-increasing profit. True change can never come about in a system where a small majority own most of the world’s wealth and control the lives of the majority.

A fundamental change to the economic state of society is needed to ever achieve equal living standards, full possession of human rights, equal opportunity and a lack of gender-, race- or sexuality-based discrimination. A fundamental change that will never come from the UN is needed to achieve Navid’s dream of an egalitarian, oppression-free society, not just in Iran but across the world.   An economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled co-operatively based on the needs of society as a whole, where the distribution of wealth serves the interests of society as a whole, is needed for this to be achieved.  That is, socialism is needed. 

The struggle for women continues, most notably at this point in history in the Middle East.  Actions greater than what diplomatic organisations such as the UN can provide are needed for true progress.  The key to ending all oppression is through the self-emancipation of the working class.  We need to create active non-violent organisations to lead the struggle. 

R.L.Bradley

The Arab Spring and the triumf of Non-Violent Action

The Arab spring of 2011 has changed the Middle East and the world. Ordinary people have lost their fear and shattered the perception that their rulers are invincible and that it is impossible to overthrow dictators without arms. Whatever happens next, the changes across the region in the first few months of 2011 have proven themselves historic as they show that revolution is possible.

It all started in Tunisia with mass protests in December last year. These were triggered by the self-immolation of a 26-year-old vegetable seller, Mohammed Bouazizi, after he was abused by police and had his only form of income, a box of vegetables and a pair of scales, confiscated. The protests continued for four weeks and concluded in a way nobody predicted - Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia’s president for the past 23 years, fled the country.

Tahrir Square occupied

Even though this amazing feat had occurred nobody predicted that it would spread as far as it did with protests and strikes kicking up all over the Middle East. In Egypt the 30-year-old dictatorship of Hosni Mubarek was seen by most as being far too ruthless for protests to succeed in any way- certainly in toppling the dictator. Millions of people took to the streets after posters on university campuses called for a non-violent protest and Tahrir square was occupied. The initial demands to topple Mubarek quickly turned into demands for womans rights; fair pay; the right to food ect. After 18 days of protests, Hosni Mubarek was gone.

The fight for liberation in the Middle-East is continuing today. The toppling of Ben Ali and Mubarak is only the start as protests spread and demands for equality and good living conditions continue. Organisation through socialist groups and trade unions is vital in order for everyone to work coherently, nationally and internationally, so they can force the remaining working class out of power and include everyone in society, making links between the causes of all the different struggles across the world. Struggles that are all fighting against a common oppressor - Capitalism and the class system.

Victories like in Egypt and Tunisia that used non-violent action are not new. Throughout history both recent and distant, ordinary people have found innovative and inspiring ways to challenge violent regimes and confront abuses of power: bringing down dictators, changing unjust laws, or simply giving individuals a renewed sense of their own humanity in the face of those who deny it. It goes to show how non-violent tactics can achieve huge advancements even when facing a repressive and brutish state. Violent protests in the Middle East have failed. States use brutal force in such a way and with such power that even if guns are available to the masses, it is impossible to confront. This is true now more than ever with the advanced technology available to states such as Israel and the USA.

Lone protestor stands up to police in Egypt

The main use of violence by the oppressed in the Arab revolutions so far is in Libya where guns were picked up by rebels to fight. They were initially bombed out by the Libyan air-force, of which their guns had no chance of defeating. This then paved the way for NATO forces to walk in on apparently “humanitarian” grounds. The result of this has been huge numbers of civilian deaths, NATO securing key ports that export oil to Europe, and even huge casualties for the rebels. This was a much less constructive method as compared to Egypt, where due to the tactics used by the protesters, through strikes and the occupation of Tahrir square, the protesters had much more control over the country, had must bigger numbers due largely to the lack of violent ideas. Obama, who’s government was an active supporter of Mubarak, was forced to say that it was good that the Egyptians were fighting for democratic rights and was unable to intervene. This differs greatly from the response he and NATO gave in Libya, where people were also fighting for true democracy as in Egypt. The USA’s interests were secured and the Libyan peoples ignored.

Non-violent tactics in Egypt also lead to key members of the army and police joining the protests. It was clear to see that the people in the army, who mostly entered it as members of the working class as a means to survive, could connect to the protesters cause as it was also theirs and their families cause. It is common sense that if these members of the army were being shot at they would be unlikely to react in the same way. This was shown as mention previously with the military in Libya. Does it not seem like common sense that is impossible to win a revolution without the army on side and this will be hard to achieve when you are shooting at them?

The Arab revolutions have shown that when the masses take to the streets and take control of means of production they can revolutionise society, even in the face of hugely repressive forces. They have also helped demonstrate the effectiveness of non-violent action and how it is ultimately more successful than violence. The Arab revolutions came as the result of decades if not centuries of oppression from the ruling classes that ensure members of the poor, working class do not have access to the basic necessities of life. They arose from the spark created by Mohammed Bouazizi but lacked political organizations to unite all of the struggles into one that could unite the masses against their common oppressor with the aim of creating true democracy. This could still happen at any moment and the struggles in the Middle East continue. Removing the dictators was only the first step. The real change that the Arab people are struggling for is yet to come…The fantastic thing is that it has started to.


J.Llewellyn