Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Women Protest in Iraq

File this under “Unthinkable in Saddam’s Iraq”:

Iraq’s female lawmakers are furious that only one member of the country’s new Cabinet is a woman and are demanding better representation in a government that otherwise has been praised by the international community for bringing together the country’s religious sects and political parties.

Although women make up a quarter of the 325-member parliament, only two ministries were offered to women—with a female candidate refusing one of them in protest—in the 44-member Cabinet that was sworn in on Tuesday. Female lawmakers cried foul and demanded more women be appointed.

Doubtless, many will cite this as evidence of a hopelessly dysfunctional Iraq and assert that “women had it better under Saddam.” Shame on them. Under Saddam, no one — man or woman — could “demand better representation” and expect to live long enough to utter the sentence that followed the demand.

But don’t believe a Western imperialist warmonger like me. Take it from Houzan Mahmoud, of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq:

“Just because we have a terrible situation at the moment doesn’t mean we need to glorify Saddam’s dictatorship.”

“During Saddam’s regime if you were not political you could lead a normal life, but for the majority of us who opposed the dictatorship, it was hell,” Mahmoud said. “You were either for the Ba’ath party under Saddam or you were subjected to torture, persecution and abuse. There was no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, women did not have the right to establish women’s organizations and he also started to bring socially conservative norms into the constitution. So I don’t really like arguments that imply that Saddam Hussein’s regime was great.”

Make no mistake. Mahmoud goes on to criticize forcefully the state of affairs for women in Iraq today. But that, in itself, serves as a sterling refutation of the Saddam nostalgiasts. Given the choice between a hopeless dictatorship and a flawed democracy, only moral simpletons would defend the former.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.