Ripe for reinterpretation
From Ebadi's various remarks it is clear
that progressive Islam protects human rights but also advocates
a secular approach with regards to political institutions
December 4, 2003
The Iranian
For a long time I've stayed away from the Shirin Ebadi "issue" to
witness how Iran, the international community, and the diasporas
would be effected and
whether institutional polarization would emerge. Particularly, when one considers
that initial responses were celebratory and reactionary, literature analyzing
the effects of Ebadi's aware are all the more necessary.
Kalbasi's article on
"Ayatollah
Ebadi?" and Izadi's retort to "Be
fair" are important stepping stones
to this analysis. In this article I wish to outline what I believe
to be an emerging
paradigm not created, but certainly clarified by Ebadi's Nobel award and subsequent
remarks.
The paradigm design is for change and reform of Iranian political
institutions through a grassroots human rights emphasis. This
differs significantly from the
approach of constitutional monarchists, neo-conservatives, and the MKO in
that the impetus of change is bottom up rather then top down. As
of late the latter
organizations have coalesced a fairly simplistic plan.
Radical change to the regime and the protection of democratization
ill naturally promote human rights. The major assumption of course
is that A) change will
lead to a democracy and B) democracies protect human rights. (I have discussed
the
fallacies of these assumption in previous articles, specifically in "Before
Satan").
Instead the Ebadi paradigm focuses on human rights as the impetus
for democratization,
much like it was prior to 1953 and once again in 1979. Both movements
were reactionary to human rights abuses which emerged from a grassroots
level
that eventually
spilled over to structural changed. In fact the only times by which Iran's
movement stagnated was when external powers imposed institutions in Iran,
as famously
illustrated in 1953.
Based on Ebadi's comments it is clear that her belief is focused
on two developments: First that human rights are the foundation
for any improvement
in the lifestyle
of Iranians. At her first press conference after the award ceremony,
Ebadi states, "There is no future for mankind without human rights.
Any discrimination on the basis of gender, race, or religion is a challenge
to our basic humanity."
Implicit within that statement is that any
formal institution must be based fundamentally on the principles
of human rights
in recognition
of their integral role to our basic humanity. This contrasts substantially
with
a "democratic" paradigm in that the latter focuses on the role of
democracy in facilitating rights, rather then democracy as a right.
Subsequently,
many democratic
regimes justify massive human rights abuses by identifying themselves
as democratic states. Israel, Argentina, Brazil, and a variety
of African states, to name
a few, are prime examples of this condition. Put short, these
countries gain legitimacy
by stressing the importance of democratic rule, rather then human
rights. Ebadi's approach, therefore, reverses the paradigm
by basing legitimacy
on human rights
rather then democracy. Consequently, states cannot use "democracy"
as an
excuse for state violations.
Second, Islamic tenets support human rights claims. Her interview
with Newsweek on October 20 attests to this, "There
is no contradiction between an Islamic
republic, Islam and human rights. If in many Islamic countries
human rights are flouted, this is because of a wrong interpretation
of
Islam.
All I've
tried to
do in the last 20 years was to prove that with another interpretation
of Islam it would be possible to introduce democracy to Muslim
countries. We need an
interpretation of Islam that leaves much more space for women
to take action.
We need an Islam
that is compatible with democracy and one that's respectful of
individual rights."
There needs to be some clarification here.
This is not to
say that religion
and the state should be one. Quite the contrary, in an interview
with London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,
Ebadi clarifies, "I support
separation
of religion and state because the political arena is open to
an unlimited number
of interests.
This position [i.e., separation of religion and state] is in
effect supported by the leading religious authorities, and it
corresponds with Shi'ite
tradition."
The question here is whether the Ebadi paradigm
derives human rights norms
from
Islam, or whether Islam is interpreted in light of human
rights? Ultimately, however, the answers are one and the same because
to
derive human rights
from Islam naturally requires a reinterpretation.
From Ebadi's various remarks
I believe that it is clear
that progressive Islam protects human rights but also advocates
a secular approach with regards to political institutions.
Thus, wherein
our
initial step focuses
on a reinterpretation of Islam, ergo the modernist Islam
movement, the end product would be secularism, human rights,
and democracy. More importantly,
it would
be a product of grassroots mobilization rather then artificial
imposition.
This is not to say that Ebadi herself is the
symbol of this movement. Kalbasi is all but correct when she
names Abbas
Amir-Entezam, Akbar Ganji, Hashem
Aghajari, Heshmatollah Tabarzadi, Kianoush Sanjari,
Ahmad Batebi, Mohammad Maleki, and
Manouchehr Mohammadi, to name a few, as significant
personas in the Iranian human rights movement.
Nevertheless, I
believe that
Ebadi's
Nobel Prize
conceptualizes and highlightes this paradigm in the
same way that Gandhi, Mandela, and King
were able to represent progressive rights movements
in their countries. That is to say, none of these movements
were based
on independent
actors and one
could
fairly argue that Indian independence and South African
and American
institutional discrimination would have ended regardless
of their roles.
No movement
is dependent on an individual actor. Yet the actor
becomes representative of
the movement.
As such I believe that Ebadi has not only taken
that role, but is hoped to embrace that role. Ultimately,
however,
Kalbasi is
correct
in her
conclusion that we
need to be open to criticism. I believe that Ebadi's
stance is currently at odds with the belief of
conservative institutions
in Iran, but
also with
that
of major
Diaspora groups in and around the western world.
Nevertheless, its appeal to the masses is that it attempts to
restructure the
system
without directly
putting
itself at odds with that system. This I believe
is the promise and hope relevant in the Ebadi paradigm. The
bottom line
is that Islam
has hit
a kind of Dark
Ages, hitting a low point with 9/11, so the Muslim
world desperately needs its own
renaissance of interpretation, and if any country
is
ripe to do that, its Iran.
>>> News & politics
forum
Author Nema Milaninia is a Graduate Student, International Human
Rights Law at the American University in Cairo.
* Send
this page to your friends
|
