Human Rights of Women
The Libyan National Transitional Council’s first public proclamation after the murder of Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi and its installation in power — about two weeks ago — concerned the proposed annulment of several Libyan statutes, to be replaced by “Sharia law.”
Which statutes in particular and which aspects of Sharia, interpreted by whom, remains unclear.
However, the Women Living Under Muslim Laws group promptly expressed concern. The fear of Libyan women is obviously that the most easy and visible symbolic signs of adherence — through dress codes and family or personal law — is what the NTC means.
Tunisian women too are nervous about the prospects for their own elections. For the same reasons. Will the purportedly “moderate” Islamic party of An-Nadah win? And, if so, will it feel able to retreat on women’s human rights? Remember here that Tunisia was the first Muslim-majority country to ban polygamy — and on the basis of an Islamic rather than a secular interpretation.
Africa’s reactions to events in the Maghreb point to our inability to resolve a certain schizophrenia.
Thus we may privately admit, for example, to unacceptable behaviour by leaders like Gaddafi vis a vis Libyan citizens. But publicly, we’ll defend him beyond all reason — because we are so contorted by our anger at Nato and the interests we believe Nato represents. And defending him beyond all reason means, ultimately justify his regime.
The African Union was apoplectic when the Arab League was used to steal the rug from under its feet. Partly because of its own interests in Gaddafi’s survival and thus its own, no doubt.
But also, quite seriously, because it believed negotiation and talking could work.
Why it believed this so adamantly is unclear — even if Gaddafi’s then anointed successor, his son Saif, had been signalling for a while his awareness of the need to democratise. Somewhat ironically, given the neo-feudal nature of the succession plan, such as it was.
The point is that neither the AU nor many of its state parties are comfortable with “loud” diplomacy.
Or, even worse, the kind of amorphous resistance bases that all the Arab Spring movements have presented. Who’s in charge? If nobody, whom can we best deal with? Order is good. Known plans are good. Quietly discussing them is good.
Everything else is alarming.
In the Maghreb, what has risen to the top has been, largely, Islamist movements — in a range of hues. Fully aware that, in the first instance, all kowtowing to notions of liberal democracy must be duly made.
As for the second instance? Well, see the concerns above of Libyan and Tunisian women.
Are we truly not able to admit to wrongdoing by our leadership — independent of equal wrongdoing on the part of external actors? Will we ever really be able to assist in helping frame what worlds emerge from the aftermath of the Arab Spring?