WUNRN
FeministsIndia
Also Via Isis International We!
Newsletter
By
Team FI – August 14, 2012
Marieme
Helie Lucas is an Algerian feminist, sociologist, political theorist and
author known for her work against religious fundamentalism. Marieme was
born in
She
talks to FeministsIndia about the Arab Revolution which was ‘neither a
socialist nor a feminist revolution’ but more a victory of the extreme right
and religious fundamentalists and argues that it is essential for women’s
rights that feminists fight for secularism.
Women
have played a crucial role in the Arab uprising that started in late 2010.
After almost two years, it is being said that women are the biggest losers in
this revolution. According to you what has gone wrong?
Nothing
went ‘wrong’: it was clear from the start that this ‘revolution’ was neither a
socialist one nor a feminist one. In both the cases of
After
the near-eradication of the Left parties/movements and workers’ unions that
went on for decades, and were either completely ignored or largely under
reported by the international media, the only organised political forces in
Tunisia and in Egypt were the religious fundamentalists ones. They took over
the protest movement.
It is
interesting to note that, contrary to their lack of proper reporting when the
Left forces were under attack, the international media did denounce the
government’s repression against fundamentalist movements: in that sense, they
not only fed the world with a very unbalanced political analysis, but they also
promoted the Far Right religious movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood,
exclusively, as victims of the state, and not as perpetrators of grave
violations of the rights of civilians and notably of women’s rights.
As the
Muslim Right did previously in other countries such as
The
Tunisian and Egyptian regimes were neither more nor less ‘undemocratic’ than
the vast majority of governments in the world today – as is confirmed by the
magnitude of the movement of the ‘Indignés’
which, for over a year, has been protesting their own rulers’ policies in many
countries in Europe and North America. However, the argument of lack of
democracy was what was broadly used to legitimate overthrowing these
governments, regardless of whom and what will replace the existing regimes.
It is
hard to believe that politicians and journalists the world over celebrated ‘the
people’ who were making a ‘revolution’, without ever probing which were the
components of the political forces within ‘the people’ – conceived of in liberal
terms as an atomised mass of individuals -, what political trend was
increasingly speaking in its name and what were the changes such forces
proposed beyond the overthrowing of the rulers.
This
is a political mistake that was denounced by many Algerians who experienced
exactly the same steps: a youth revolt in 1988, not initiated by fundamentalist
groups but immediately hijacked by them, a demand for new elections as the only
way to ensure ‘ democracy’, i.e. fundamentalists’ demand that supposedly religious
laws labelled ‘sharia’ be enforced on the whole population.
The
cancellation of the legislative elections in December 1991 was not the
beginning of fundamentalist violence in Algeria as media wrongly reported:
violence had been going on since the sixties and increasing with each decade;
but it was followed by an even more violent decade of extreme fundamentalist
violence on the entire population, that made about 200000 victims in the
nineties: while intellectuals, journalists, artists, were targeted individually
and slaughtered, while entire villages were burnt down and eradicated by armed
fundamentalists, women were fundamentalists’ preferential target – they were
beheaded, burnt, mutilated, tortured, raped, forcibly impregnated in order to
produce ‘good Muslims’, and, whether veiled or unveiled, assassinated in large
numbers throughout the decade.
This
experience of living under fundamentalists’ rule, and the intimate knowledge of
their political strategies is the reason why Algerian women saw clearly from
the start what was in the making in
There
is a need to reflect on democracy as a concept and on elections being the only
criteria of evaluation for democracy: if we do not, we will end up celebrating
Hitler as the champion of democracy, for the very reason that he was elected by
‘the people’.
The
fact is that, in
Both
in the case of
Legitimate
popular struggles and uprisings can pave the way to extreme Right populist
parties – in the case of
In
countries like
Women’s
rights activists in countries like
Do you
see a reversal in women’s rights in these countries in the wake of this
re-emergence of conservative religious political culture?
Unfortunately,
women refused to see the danger till it was too late. A simple list of the
crimes committed by Tunisian fundamentalists between the fall of Benali and the
eve of the elections shows what they intended to promote: violent attacks of
peaceful women’s demonstrations, sexual assaults during these demonstrations,
death threats to secularists, beating of men who drank alcohol in bars, threats
on women who went to the beach who were forcibly sent home at gun point,
threats on women who were not ‘properly covered’, forbidding legal electoral
meetings of the Tunisian Communist Party, attempts at burning of a theatre hall
and a TV station that scheduled films they deemed un-Islamic, legal actions in
court against secularists for ‘offending Islam’, armed fundamentalist squadrons
checking into private homes if there were alcohol in the house, etc.
All
this happened before the elections in
Since
the elections many more crimes were committed such as forced veiling of women,
illegal occupation of
What
fundamentalists did in
Meanwhile,
Algerian intellectuals who fled Algerian fundamentalists’ rule were threatened
by Tunisian fundamentalists while they lived in exile in
This
sadly reminds me of Iranian women giving us similar warnings well ahead of
time, and Algerian women’s organisations refusing to see what our Iranian
sisters pointed at in our own country.
Now we
do warn Senegalese women that we see the rise of fundamentalism in their
country, but they answer, just as we Algerians did, and as Tunisians did as
well: ‘No! Not in our country!, It is far too advanced, liberal, with
progressive laws, etc.’ It seems one does not benefit from other’s experiences.
What
do women have to lose? What were the legal rights of women in
In
Although
article 1 of the Tunisian Constitution establishes Islam as the religion of the
republic, article 5 -on personal integrity, conscience, belief- states that the
Accordingly,
the Tunisian Civil Code that applies to all citizens recognises different
personal status and each community is governed by a different family law. This
pattern, common to all countries in the MENA (Middle East and
Here
are some examples of the rights enjoyed by Tunisian women under the family law
passed right at independence in 1956 by the first President, Habib Bourguiba,
which were improved in later years under the pressure of women’s organisations.
Let’s only look, as an example, at the conditions of marriage that protect
women’s rights.
In
It is
interesting to note that, in
Further,
the law endlessly reiterates its will to secure the bride’s consent. Under A.9
of the CPS both spouses have a right to contract their marriage or to appoint
proxies. A.3 specifies that validity does not require the consent of a wali. Under A.3 of the
CPS, there is no marriage without the consent of the spouses. Under A.21 the
marriage is declared null and void if performed without the consent of both
spouses. A.3 is interpreted in case law that consent should be manifested in an
indisputable manner by saying ‘yes’ before the officiating officer.
The
marriage contract further protects the woman. Under A.4 of the CPS, two
‘trustworthy’ witnesses are required for validity of the marriage. The sex of
witnesses is not specified, i.e. it can be women, another rare instance in the
region. A marriage lacking witnesses is void under A.21 and 22.
Further,
the economic future of the bride is protected by the mahr, which is an
essential component of the marriage and a requisite for validity, otherwise
marriage is void. There is no maximum or minimum limit for mahr but it must not be
‘worthless’ (A.3 of the CPS).
Under
A.12, mahr is the property of the wife, to be disposed of as she wishes.
Under
A.4 of the CPS marriage shall be proved only by an official document prescribed
by law. The contract is established before two notaries public, if the marriage
is celebrated at home or in a private venue, otherwise before a civil status
registrar in a Municipal Council Office if celebrated publicly. Without a
contract the marriage is null and void.
Marriage
contracts are civil contracts and must include 1. The exact identity of
spouses, 2. The mutual consent of spouses, 3. If spouses are under age, the
guardian’s authorisation, 4. The name and signature of witnesses, 5. The mahr.
All
these provisions stand against all forms of child marriage and forced marriage,
organized by families against the will of girls that prevail in so many
countries in the MENA region. However, if a marriage were to be performed
without the bride’s consent, it is declared invalid by a court (A.22). If
unconsummated, the court’s statement is enough to free the woman. If it were
consummated and then declared invalid, the woman can claim her mahr, the paternity of
children is recognized and the woman must observe idda before marrying again. In both cases,
no divorce proceedings are necessary.
Under
A.23 of the CPS, women were still to ‘obey’ their husbands and did not envisage
mutual responsibilities. It was amended by Law No. 93-74 of July 12, 1993, and
the rights and responsibilities of spouses are now equal in the marriage,
including financially: the wife is to participate in supporting the family if
she has money and the husband has no right over the wife’s money (under A.24).
Polygyny
was abolished under A.18 of the CPS: a man can be punished with one year in
prison or a fine if he contracts a polygynous marriage. A wife who knowingly
enters such a marriage is liable of the same punishment. Under A.21 a
polygynous marriage is considered irregular and can be nullified.
Divorce
by unilateral repudiation by the husband (talaq)
was outlawed under A.30 of the CPS and divorce can only take place in court.
Under A.31 divorce by mutual consent is recognised. Whatever the grounds are,
divorce is only possible through the court and after reconciliation efforts by
the judge.
All
these legal provisions show that laws passed under Bourguiba in the late 50′s
were favourable to women, granting them equal rights in many instances, and
trying to protect them from families and husbands. It also shows that women’s
organisations fought for bettering the existing laws, and succeeded in
obtaining further rights in the following decades. It did make the status of
Tunisian women a wonderful exception in the MENA region.
In
In
cases of forced marriages, women mostly wait for a few years, separate from
their husbands, and then file for divorce.
The
wife, far from enjoying equal rights and responsibilities in marriage is
entitled maintenance only if she submits to her husband and does not leave the
matrimonial home without his permission. The husband remains the one to decide
whether going out for lawful work is or is not contrary to what he thinks is in
the interests of the family.
While
in
While
in
We
could go on looking at the financial settlements of the dissolution of
marriage, the rights and responsibilities over the children after divorce,
etc.… We would see that Tunisian women had the best status in the region, that
they were granted more legal rights than Egyptian women, and that generally
both enjoyed more rights than most other women of the MENA region. Those
interested in the issue should be referred to the handbook produced in 2003 by
the international network Women Living Under Muslim Laws (‘Knowing Our Rights:
Women, family, laws and customs in the Muslim world’), in which are compiled
and compared the rights of women under Codes of Personal Status/Muslim Personal
Laws in many Muslim countries and communities throughout Asia, Africa and the
MENA region.
How
are the gains obtained by women under Bourguiba and Sadate directly targeted by
Tunisian and Egyptian fundamentalists?
Not
only do girls may now be given in marriage as early as puberty, but Female
Genital Mutilation (FGM – a pre Islamic practice by all historical accounts) is
now openly advocated for in
Willingly
or unwillingly, since ‘the revolution’, Tunisian women are increasingly wear a
full covering – Saudi style, which is totally alien to their culture’s
traditional dress code, etc.
But
have we ever heard any outcry for the protection of ‘Tunisian culture’ in this
case? We rather hear claims that veiling is part and parcel of Islam…as if the
world turned a blind eye at the worldwide expansion of a specifically connoted
Middle Eastern dress code that increasingly outcast all the various forms of
dresses (from boubou to
saris to Berber colourful dresses) that were traditionally ours for centuries.
Moreover, non-consented marriages, polygyny, unilateral repudiation, obedience
to the husband, etc.. are claimed by fundamentalists to be intrinsic to Islam,
hence to be sanctified. If one does not want to run the risk of being labeled
‘Islamophobic’ !.
Women’s
rights in the countries like
Let me
take this opportunity to challenge here the use of the term ‘sharia law’ in the
formulation of your question. It is a grave mistake to use the fundamentalist
terminology and to label ‘sharia law’ any of the patriarchal measures that they
want to impose as part of religion. It is both a factual mistake and also a
political mistake. Additionally, I will also challenge the use of the term
‘Islamophobia’.
First
of all ‘sharia’ in Arabic means ‘the path to God’, i.e. an individual spiritual
journey. It does not mean and has never meant any legal provision or set of
provisions, any human law of any given country. Any decent Islamic theologian
will confirm this translation of the word ‘sharia’ and its misuse by
fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists
managed to make the world believe that there is such a set of divine laws and
that challenging their views on this matter is an insult to Islam itself.
Progressive
forces outside Muslim countries and communities cowardly bend to this false
translation/interpretation of the Arabic terminology, for fear of being accused
of racism or ‘Islamophobia’.
‘Islamophobia’
is yet another concept that fundamentalists forged and managed to give
credibility to: as they portray themselves as the only legitimate
representatives of their religion, if one opposes any of their diktats passed
in the name of Islam, one is accused of being against Islam. In other words,
the fundamentalist mantra is: as we are the only representatives of the true
Islam, if you are against us, you are against Islam, thus ‘Islamophobic’.
Progressive
people and feminists should avoid giving credence to fundamentalists’ claims by
deconstructing their terminology and by refusing to use it. All fundamentalists
of all religions want to impose their backward interpretations as THE only true
version of their religion.
However
when it comes to Christianity, one would not dream of agreeing that Opus Dei’s
view of religion is the only true one. They know that, for instance, the
Liberation Theology in
How
come this very simple political analysis of the forces that promote different
versions of religions is not made when it comes to Islam? How come even
progressives around the world do accept the most backward practices promoted by
fundamentalists as perfectly legitimate? Regardless of progressive
interpretations by progressive theologians of Islam, regardless of the
progressive laws of countries that are now in danger of being changed to the
worst?
A
second reason to ban ‘sharia law’ from your vocabulary is to compare the
different religious laws in Muslim countries and communities – all said to be
perfectly in accordance with Islam: one can see how different they are from one
another.
This
should at the very least point at the fact that they are man made, not God
given.
Under
these various laws, women’s space range from being strictly closeted into four
walls throughout their lives, given in marriage as a child, having no access to
property or inheritance, etc.…to situations where women can go out freely, earn
their living, adopt children in or outside a marriage, marry or remain single,
participate in political affairs and become heads of state.
For
example, if we consider the legal age of marriage, it ranges from being married
as a child such a in Gambia or Iran, to a minimum age that can be challenged in
court, such as in Algeria, Malaysia, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Morocco or
Nigeria. In matters of rights and duties in marriage, equal rights between
spouses exist for Muslims in
If one
looks at the diversity of the so-called Muslim laws across the world, which one
of these legal provisions, all taken by governments that claim this is
perfectly Islamic, is THE ‘sharia’? And who has the capacity and the right to
decide upon it? Are we going to allow the Muslim Right to decide upon it?
These
are some of the questions raised by the improper use of the term ‘ sharia law’.
I urge feminists to drop using it. And ‘Islamophobia’ as well.
A
closer analysis would demonstrate that laws unfavourable to women are derived
not just from religion but from various sources: indeed, there are different,
and sometimes opposite interpretations of religion that shape laws, but laws
are also inspired by non-religious, very different, cultural practises across
the MENA region, Asia and Africa, and even incorporate colonial patriarchal
measures long outlawed in the former colonizers’ countries.
Let me
give you a few examples:
- On opposite religious
interpretations:
- On cultural influence: FGM
(female genital mutilation), a pre-Islamic practice geographically limited to
the sphere of influence of Pharaonic Ancient Egypt- is now supported and
propagated by fundamentalist groups as an Islamic obligation, throughout the
world. It gained ground in more and more countries in
Some
twenty years ago, fundamentalist groups advocated it in
Similarly,
veiling, a Middle Eastern dress code designed to protect against desert winds
and heat both men and women, be they Christians (as any depiction of Virgin
Mary attests to), Jews or Muslims, could be another example.
- On colonial laws: In
independent Algeria (1962), the 1920, post-WWI natalist French law criminalising
any knowledge or practice of contraception or abortion was propagated, in the
name of Islam, till 1976, despite a fatwa
by the High Islamic Council of Algeria stating in 1963, that contraception was
licit in Islam and that abortion could have large indications including that of
the mental health of the mother to be.
In
Fundamentalists
attempt to eradicate diversity, the diversity of cultural practices, of laws,
of interpretations of religion, of dress code, etc. by imposing a patriarchal
backward supposedly religious law to all, across continents.
Will
we let them do it? In the name of Islam? In the name of democracy? Or will the
world support anti-fundamentalists, give them visibility?
Examples
such as the Shah’s Iran, Taliban’s Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,
Qaddafi’s Libya and now Bachar Al Assad’s Syria leave very little hope, where
ordinary people were further physically crushed by armed fundamentalists, and
their already meager liberties totally suppressed, under the pretext of
combating tyrants.
In all
these cases, imperialism and their media were instrumental in supporting the
most backwards alternatives to ‘undemocratic’ governments. This is logical and
expected. But not just imperialism: short-sighted Left parties and media, the
world over, also supported fundamentalists as ‘people’s champions against
states.
This
year March 8th
celebrations by women were attacked by groups of men in
Isn’t
it surprising that the world discovers these abuse and attacks on women while
they have been going on uninterrupted for months since the revolutions?
In
Egypt, several women journalists were raped on Tahrir square itself by demonstrators
as well as in the police stations: they publicly testified about it; women
demonstrators were sexually molested during demonstrations by
fellow-demonstrators (not just by plain cloth policemen hidden in the crowd);
hundreds of women were submitted to so-called ‘virginity tests by the police’;
numerous photos of women dragged half naked by plain cloth police went around
the world, including the famous ‘blue bra’ photo. Bearded men armed with sticks
attacked Tunisian women peaceful demonstrations, and the women were sexually
molested too. That happened months ago… a year ago…
To me
the question is: why is it now that these questions are raised?
How
does it make sense politically to start pointing at Islamist groups only now,
while they were present and active since the beginning?
Is it
the usual anti-state syndrome of the Left that praised ‘the people’ and refused
to identify within it the Muslim Brotherhood and other Far Right movements? Is
it the fact that fundamentalists were opposing the state and bringing down
‘tyrants’ that protected them so far? Is it that they lose their immunity in
the eyes of the Left now that they were elected and officially came to power?
Egyptian
journalist Mona Eltahawy recently published a controversial article in which she argues that the
entire Arab region has a celebrated history of misogyny and culturally the
region has always tolerated violence against women. Do you agree? Do you
think this as one of the reasons why women are excluded from the current
decision making process and the growing attack on women by Islamist
groups? Do you agree that women are facing a serious challenge in the
post revolutionary Arab world?
All
the countries around the Mediterranean area have a common history of misogyny
and violence against women. It was only yesterday – if I may say so – that in
Sicily, Greece or Spain ‘honour crimes’ were frequent and that the women were
punished by death and the executioners were men in the family. These are
predominantly Christian countries. Not Muslim ones. Not Arab ones.
However
culture per se and some of its most backwards aspects and practices do not
develop regardless of a political context: some contexts help promote
progressive aspects of culture while other contexts favour backward practices.
Violence
today in the MENA region does not happen in a political vacuum, it flourishes
in a specific political context: the rise of Extreme Right political groups
which all enforce anti women rules.
Like
Nazis, the Muslim Right sends women back to ‘the Church, the kitchen, and the
cradle’. Marine Le Pen, the present leader of the Far Right party National
Front in
All
the various fundamentalist movements play the same role. If we clearly see this
as Far Right politics in the cases of the National Front or of the Nazi Party,
why can’t the world see it as clearly when it comes to the Muslim Right?
Yes,
women are definitely facing a serious challenge with the rise of Far Right
religious parties, even more so when they become the ‘democratically’ elected
rulers.
Let us
remember that in Libya, the very day the provisional government ( Libya’s
National Transition Committee) took over, this provisional government that
represented the struggle against the ‘tyrant Qaddafi’ and people’s desire for
democracy, it unilaterally decided to suspend any existing law and to replace
all of them by ‘Sharia law’- whatever that meant in their views – and we
demonstrated earlier that it can cover anything and everything!
While
the world celebrated the advent of ‘democracy’ in
Women
in Muslim countries and communities spoke up, but theirs was a lonely voice. In
a statement dated October 25, 2011,Women Living Under Muslim Law (WLUML) points
at the fact that the legal change initiated by the interim government targets
specifically women: ‘when we consider which laws have been de facto annulled
and changed for religious ones, we see that these are laws that directly affect
the rights of women in marriage, divorce, guardianship, polygamy, inheritance,
etc… ie. family codes or laws of personal status. Women are directly targeted
by this change in laws and will lose many acquired rights in the process.’
I
really enjoyed Mona Eltahawy’s brilliant and courageous piece: she dares
denounce what women were subjected to during demonstrations, not just by the
police but also at the hands of male demonstrators in
Even
feminists of Muslim descent living in the
This
shows what her detractors’ priority is: the main – and in fact only – danger as
they see it is ‘Western imperialism’; they deny the existence of our local
national home bred Far Right forces and the threat it is for women and all the
non-fundamentalist citizens. This position deprives anti fundamentalist
citizens of any means to adequately address the rise of their Far Right forces:
the danger is located outside, far from them in
Although
one can point at numerous instances in which ‘Western imperialism’ and the
Muslim Right struck a deal (such as the Northern Alliance and then the Taliban
in
Do you
see a direct link between increasing Islamisation seen across the world with
the ongoing Islamophobia in the west, including
As
previously argued, I think choosing to use the term’ Islamophobia’ rather than
racism, xenophobia, or any already existing concept is extremely dangerous and
fuels into the fundamentalist agenda.
May I
remind you that the only man killed by the police after the
It is
not Islam that is attacked; it is people deemed to be Muslims, regardless of
their personal faith. A Christian Egyptian would be submitted to just as much
xenophobia and discrimination as a Muslim Egyptian would be, as both are seen
as ‘Arabs’ from the
Ordinary
people in Europe and North America are totally ignorant about Islam, what
racists hate are foreigners, strangers whom they see as intrinsically
backwards, stealing their jobs in a context of economic crisis, wrongly
benefiting from social measures, etc.….
Turning
a faith into a race is the most scary political move one witnessed since the
Jews were persecuted by the Nazis as a ‘race’, implicitly derived from the
religion they were supposed to believe in, although many of them living in
Everywhere
in Europe, governments, media and ordinary people speak of ‘the Muslims’ while
a good percentage of those presumed ‘Muslims’ declare themselves agnostics or
atheists (around 25% of French citizens of Muslim descent in France, a figure
that matches that for presumed Catholics), while a vast majority of those who
do not dare declare themselves openly without religion do admit to not actually
practising any religion at all (over 85%, again the figure for presumed Muslims
matches that for presumed Catholics).
We
have to face it: so-called Muslims in
There
is no doubt that fundamentalists promote the world over their ultra
conservative views of the world under the mask of religion. Is this
‘Islamisation’? Progressive theologians and believers in Islam, as well as
non-believers, would rather call this political phenomenon a rise of the Far
Right.
What
struck me in the Left discourse on the war-on-terror in
Why
deny it? Why condone and legitimise fundamentalist violence as a simple
reaction to imperialism? To oppression there can be responses from progressive
social actors (such as women fighting for their rights) or dangerous responses
from the Right and the Far Right. Those are dangerous mainly for the peoples in
their countries. Supporting the Far Right in the name of anti imperialism is a
crime.
Part
of the problem is that anti fundamentalists have little or no access to the
media; fundamentalist Muslims are much more ‘exotic’ and appealing to the media
that ordinary citizens from Muslim descent who go to the mosque 3 times in
their lives, who don’t pray, don’t fast – just like most Christians or Jews do
in Europe today -, and when they do not eat pork, it is just out of habit
rather than a religious practice.
In the
quasi-total public invisibility of anti fundamentalists, of progressive Muslims
or of non-believers of Muslim descent, it is then easier for fundamentalists to
claim that they represent the real Islam.
This
rise of Muslim fundamentalism takes place in the specific political context of
rising Far Right movements in
Both
Muslim fundamentalists and traditional Far Right xenophobic parties concur in
building up violence against each other, both look for physical confrontations
that would rally more troops to their respective causes.
At the
turn of the century, when Italians workers were the main source of immigration
into France, there were pogroms against them and dozens were killed and
hundreds wounded by lynching mobs of French workers in a noted instance in 1911
in the South of France. The
These
Italian workers were ‘white’, Christians and Europeans. They were not
‘Muslims’. Poles, Russians, Spaniards, Portuguese also faced hatred when they
migrated to
But
today citizens of Italian origin (or other origin) are fully integrated into
the population of
We
should not let Far Right parties and movements (that includes the Muslim
fundamentalist Far Right) break this trend in
As
feminists, what would be the biggest lesson we have learned from the Arab
uprising?
There
are three major areas we should reflect upon:
As
progressive citizens, we should keep in mind that popular revolts are not
necessarily progressive ones, that popular discontent in and by itself is not a
political agenda; this agenda can be determined in a crucial way by Far Right
forces that hijack the protests to their benefit. We should reflect on the
limits of parliamentary democracy when it brings Far Right movements into
power: elections in and by themselves are no guarantee of social rights for
people in general and for women in particular.
In the
specific context of increasing religionising of politics, it is essential for
women’s rights that feminists fight for secularism, i.e. a total separation of
religion and politics.
Under
secularism, the state declares itself incompetent in religious matters. It does
not interfere with organised religions, the Church for instance. It does not
recognise organised religions as political partners and does not grant them any
representativity.
Secularism
only recognises individuals as equal citizens, speaking for themselves.
Secularism does not mean, and should not be seen as meaning, that the state
interferes with religions on an equal footing, is equally tolerant vis-a-vis
each religion. This is a perversion of the concept, which prevails in the
However,
in a secular state, the state guarantees freedom of belief. It also guarantees
the same citizen’s rights to non-believers, agnostics and atheists.
The
case of
As feminists,
we should remember that women have always been part of revolutionary movements
and have repeatedly been ignored and sent back to their domestic duties after
revolutions. This is equally true of Olympe de
Gouges in the French Revolution, of Alexandra
Kollontai in the Soviet Revolution or of many women of my generation in the
struggles for independence in Africa or Asia in the second half of the 20th
century.
Women
have been part of the uprisings in
Moreover
‘women’ as such are not necessarily progressive or feminists, as shown by the
growing number of women who join fundamentalist groups. There were also
numerous women in all the Far Right movements such as the Nazi party in
In
order to advance the feminist agenda regarding women’s rights, we need not just
women but progressive feminists, thinkers and politicians in the leadership of
uprisings, and strong feminist organisations to support them as well as to
monitor their actions.
The
worldwide feminist movement of the 70′s recruited its women cadres from
the Left where women, rightly so, were disappointed by the prevailing
patriarchy. However they benefited from the political culture of the Left. This
is less and less true of today’s feminists and we need to recreate among
feminist organisations the kind of progressive and non-patriarchal political
culture that is needed to re-think strategically the place of women in popular
uprisings.