A pyrrhic victory
Mustafa El-Labbad spoke with Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi about the Iranian elections and democracy just before the second round that saw Mahmoud Ahmedinejad emerge victorious.
Shirin Ebadi smiles rarely. Since being stripped by the revolution of her post as a judge in the Tehran Court she has dedicated her legal skills to the pursuit of women and children rights in Iran for which, in 2003, she received the Nobel Peace Prize. – How do you assess the recent presidential elections in Iran? And who, in your opinion, will win the run-off elections? – I have no opinion on who will win in the run-off elections. I didn’t vote in the elections. Perhaps you should ask those who voted. – But you must have a view of your own. – As long as a council [the Guardian Council] or an individual [the spiritual guide] screens the candidates I cannot vote. Freedom cannot be achieved as long as an individual or a council acts as guardian. I am not a member of any party or opposition group. This is a private view and I do not expect others to follow it. Everyone is free to vote or to boycott the vote. – Is Iran, in your opinion, moving towards more democracy and freedom? – I cannot foretell the future. But I can talk about the past three years and give you a more accurate answer. The future is a guessing game but the past is open to analysis. When the seventh parliamentary elections were held many candidates were banned from running, including 85 who had been members of the sixth parliament. No proof of their ineligibility was given. Why [were they banned]? Because they criticised the conservatives. During the presidential elections some people — women included — were not allowed to run. This is a violation of international norms. The human rights situation in Iran is not what one might wish it to be. – How would you compare democracy in Iran with democracy in the region? – Democracy in Iran has improved slightly when compared with neighbouring countries but it lags behind that in countries elsewhere. Democracy is a culture, expressed and reflected in laws and state administration. The ultimate criterion is what people want. People may live under a dictatorship and be happy about it if they know nothing better. Or they may be living under a half- dictatorship, which is better than dictatorship, and be unhappy. What people want is some criterion to measure democracy, that much I accept. Democracy as it exists in Iran is better than that of neighbouring countries. The Iranian people want more democracy, and the level of democracy available in Iran falls short of their expectations. Democracy needs to move forward in Iran. – How do you view US pressure on Iran? – When foreign danger threatens any country it is used as an excuse to pressure liberals. Anyone who criticises the state is branded as a foreign agent. I do not approve of any potential US attack against Iran, or even of the threat [of an attack]. The situation facing democracy in Iran, let me reiterate, is far from ideal but it is up to Iranians, and only Iranians, to improve that situation. – How do you assess the situation in the Middle East? – Since the collapse of the Soviet regime the Middle East has been the scene of chaos, wars and internal strife. This is due to the fact that huge oil reserves lie in the region, reserves that are the lifeline of Western technology.
Saddam Hussein was a dictator, no one disputes that, and Iraqis were happy to see him go. But was Saddam the only dictator in the world? Why did the US attack this dictator and leave others. The reason is because Iraq possesses huge oil reserves. It is all about oil, not about democracy and not about freedom. More than 100,000 innocent people have perished, and all the museums have been looted. Couldn’t we have accomplished the task with less damage? I believe that this would have been possible had Saddam been overthrown by Iraqis and not the US army. – How do you assess the world order following 9/ 11? Where is the world heading? – Sadly the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. We have to alleviate poverty. Once there is social justice, and a judicial order, one will be able to talk of world order. What we have now is not a world order but world exploitation. – You’re the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. How do you see the condition of women in Iran, the Middle East, and the world? – Women are being discriminated against in the Muslim world, and they do not have the same rights as men. The level of discrimination differs from one country to another. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, women lack the right to participate even in municipal elections. In other countries, such as Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, things are better and women have become presidents and prime ministers. In some Islamic countries polygamy is allowed, in others it is banned. Generally speaking, the situation of women in the Muslim world is worse than that in the West. – Why is that so? Is it Islam that discriminates between men and women or is it due to the cultural legacy of the Muslim world? – It is not Islam that is unfair to women. Islam gives them special status. At a time when women in Europe had no rights Islam gave women many rights, including the right to own property. There is a famous saying by Prophet Mohamed that goes, “women are slighted by evil men and honoured by honourable men”. The Quran treats men and women equally whenever it refers to the faithful. Why is the situation of women in the Muslim world so deplorable? The answer is because the dominant culture in Islamic countries is patriarchal. This culture interprets religion according to its own interests. I will give you an example. In Iran, there is a law stipulating that the financial compensation, or diya, for accidentally killing a woman is half that for killing a man. If a man kills a woman the latter’s family receives half the compensation they would have received had the victim been a man. Does this make sense? Is this based on Islam? Of course not, it is an erroneous interpretation of Islam based on a patriarchal culture. An Iranian scholar, Ayatollah Sanei, has disputed this law, saying that “the diya for both women and men is the same in Islam, and anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken”. Another example: following the revolution in Iran women were prohibited from serving as judges. Women judges were transferred to administrative jobs within the judicial system. I, along with other liberal women, disputed the decision. We wrote articles and organised seminars. It took the judicial authorities 13 years to restore to women the right to serve as judges. Now we have women judges in Iran. The correct interpretation of Islam would lead to the approval of women rights. If you go to the website of Ayatollah Sanei you will find a ruling to the effect that women can serve in the most senior clerical posts. It all depends on how you interpret Islam. What harms women is the patriarchal world’s interpretation of Islam. With the correct interpretation women would regain their rights. We need an interpretation that suits the needs of our time and place. Interpretations made 600 years ago are no longer satisfactory. Contemporary problems call for contemporary solutions. The world cannot be governed by ancient perspectives. – It is claimed by some you won the Nobel Prize for political reasons. How do you react? Ask the committee that awarded the prize. – Has the Nobel Prize given you any advantages inside Iran? And has your voice become more influential outside the country? – The Nobel Prize gave me advantages outside Iran but inside the country nothing has changed. When I was awarded the prize Iranian state-run television and radio mentioned nothing about the matter. The Iranian media reported the news one full day after the announcement was made, apart from one television channel which carried the story at 11pm, when everyone was asleep. But abroad things were different and I was allowed to publicise my opinions loud and clear. – I am told that few Iranians knew of you before the prize. Did they learn about you afterwards? – Ask the people about that. But the Iranians, I think, knew who I was. When I returned to Iran after receiving the prize one million people were waiting to greet me. – How did the Islamic revolution change your life? – I had to leave a job I loved as a judge and some laws changed for the worse, and I was occasionally discriminated against. This situation is what led me to work in human rights. – What are your future projects? – I will keep doing the same things. I will not alter the path I have chosen for myself. I will continue to focus, as before, on human rights. The source: Al Ahram Weekly. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg