Women’s Rights in Morocco and the West: An Ethical Analysis
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world…Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal right of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…Now, therefore the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations…”
-The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
“Their Lord has answered them: ‘I will not allow the deeds of any one of you to be lost, whether you are male or female, each is like the other’ [literally ‘you come from each other’].”
-The Quran (3:195)
There’s an old Indian parable, loved by cultural relativists and subverted by ethno-centrists, about a group of blind men trying to describe an elephant. One man, touching the elephant’s trunk, claims the elephant is like a snake; another man, grasping the tusk, claims the elephant is actually like a spear; yet another man, feeling the leg, claims the elephant is not like a snake or spear, but more like a tree. The general idea is that each of us, because of our own personal, subjective experiences, is limited in our understanding of a more complete, total truth. Yet, the ethno-centrists would respond, claiming there is a more complete, total truth to be known—the whole of the elephant—in the first place suggests necessary knowledge of said truth that it was declared impossible to know.
Perhaps framing a discussion on the ethics of the transfer of cultural knowledge and values in such a dualistic manner creates an unnecessarily limiting and overly simplistic model for thinking about intercultural exchange. Perhaps the elephant’s trunk and leg are less distinct than either realizes—it is, after all, the same blood flowing through both, the same skin, the same system of muscles, the same nervous system. What one man knew to be true of the elephant’s tail, another man can know to also be true of the elephant’s ear, for instance. This false notion about the complete distinctiveness of cultures is not only historically inaccurate—it also sets us up for an antagonistic and unproductive conversation about how to develop a fair and just global community in an increasingly globalizing world.
One arena in which this discussion has been particularly prevalent is in the establishment and promotion of universal human rights and, specifically, women’s rights. Given that the individuals and institutions promoting these supposedly “universal” rights are predominantly “Western” in their education and lifestyle, it is legitimate to be concerned that the values being spread—and the very idea of “universal” rights itself—may be subject to a “Western” bias. This would constitute, in effect, a form of neo-imperialism, in which powerful Western countries and institutions use their political and economic might to pressure less powerful countries into accepting their values. For example, the United States could theoretically threaten economic sanctions on Russia if it did not repeal hypothetical laws limiting the ability of women to pursue secondary education.
The issue with this conception, as mentioned early, is that the “clash of civilizations” idea that cultures are distinct and contradictory is a myth. As Amartya Sen claims in The Idea of Justice, “There are many differences in reasoning within the West, and within the East, but it would be altogether fanciful to think of a united West confronting ‘quintessentially Eastern’ priorities.” (Sen, 2009) This quote is important because it emphasizes not only the falsity of the “us versus them” attitude, but also the idea that there are more differences in values within a culture than between cultures. As Sen continues, “It is my claim, rather, that similar—or closely linked—ideas of justice, fairness, responsibility, duty, goodness, and rightness have been pursued in many different parts of the world…” (Sen, 2009)
This brings us to the question of the proper role of “Western” institutions in promoting women’s rights in a country like Morocco, a North African Muslim nation considered to be “non-Western.” From an ethical standpoint, we have two competing considerations: on one hand, there is the right of women to be equal to men, which Morocco has struggled to promote and ensure; and on the other hand, there is the right of communities (and nations) to be autonomous and sovereign, which Western intervention would violate. Both considerations are legitimate, and are concerned with the issue of agency, whether on an individual or community level. Without making any sort of policy prescription, I would like to suggest that the ethical approach to this seeming contradiction is through a culturally-sanctioned model for promoting gender equality. Moroccan culture is not inherently or homogeneously misogynistic; just as in any society, there are diverse, often contradictory, strains of thought. In order to improve the agency of Moroccan women, while simultaneously respecting the autonomy of Morocco to rule itself, Western institutions ought to promote women’s rights through a framework that synthesizes traditionally Moroccan or Islamic thought and culturally-sensitive language.
I. Ethical Consideration: The Rights of Women
It should be automatically apparent, at this point, that any legitimate moral, ethical, or philosophical doctrine that declares the promotion of human dignity as one of its goals cannot, at the same time, advocate for different treatment of people based on an arbitrary characteristic such as gender (or race, or sexual orientation). It is beyond the scope of this paper to argue the moral foundation of such an idea, but will rather assume it as the norm through which an international conception of social justice can be formulated. Rooted in the concept of social justice is the need for agency—for individuals to have the freedom and opportunity to make decisions in their lives in order “to achieve outcomes that they value and have reason to value” (Sen, 1999). This means that every individual should have the capability to make decisions that have a real impact on his or her own life, regardless of gender.
The conversation about women’s rights in Morocco has taken a significantly progressive turn since the beginning of King Mohammed VI’s reign in 1999. The new King, a self-proclaimed reformer and moderate, made it clear from the start that he wished to erase the conservative, traditional legacy his father had dictated over the country. He worked with liberals and conservatives, secular and religious, modern and traditional to reform the Moudawana, or “family code,” the only part of Moroccan law still based almost exclusively on Islamic precepts. Under the new code, passed in 2004, husbands and wives are legally equal, whereas previously husbands were responsible for families and wives had to obey their husbands. There are now laws protecting female minors from being married, the minimum age for marriage is now equal for both genders, and polygamy is much more difficult to have approved (Zoglin, 2009).
Perhaps the most notable reform to the family code was the change in divorce laws. Under the old family code, only a husband could initiate divorce, and he did not even need to seek approval from the court. The reforms now allow wives to initiate divorce, and they also added a number of new grounds for seeking a divorce that protect both parties involved. The best interests of the children are also considered when deciding legal guardianship after divorce, and judges are more involved in enforcing marriage contracts that determine how assets and property are divided. Overall, Morocco has seen great strides in recent years in terms of ensuring legally-sanctioned gender equality (Zoglin, 2009).
Yet, Morocco is still a long way from achieving true equality between the genders. While legally husbands and wives are now considered equal, there have been issues in application of the law that prevent women from enjoying its full protection. Judges, now with more autonomy than ever before, have remained faithful to previous laws regarding women in the family, and so have inconsistently implemented the new family code. On top of this, there remains strong social pressure, remnants of a traditional, conservative society, for women not to assert their newly-ensured rights. For example, wives may be pressured, by economic or physical threats, to accept unfavorable marriage conditions or divorce agreements. As a result, many women do not feel the reforms even help protect their rights (Zoglin, 2009).
It was not even until very recently—less than a month prior to the writing of this paper—that the government overturned a law that allowed rapists to avoid being punished for raping underage girls simply by marrying them. In parts of Moroccan society, an unmarried woman who is not a virgin is considered shameful and dishonorable, even if she lost her virginity through rape, and some consider marriage to the rapist a means of reconciliation. Despite the fact the law was overturned, challenges still remain for women suffering from sexual and other physical violence. It is estimated that one in four women in Morocco experience violence, particularly in rural areas where they lack access to education and conservative attitudes present an obstacle for asserting their independence. Women’s rights groups are still pushing for more legislation that recognizes and addresses these unique problems (BBC News, 2014).
II. Ethical Consideration: The Rights of Communities to be Autonomous
As Westerners and “outsiders,” where does our role as witnesses to these violations of human rights end? It seems natural, and maybe even morally necessary, that we should want to do whatever we can to ensure these women fully enjoy their human rights, lest we ignore the plight of a group of people simply because they occupy a “different world” than us. At the same time, there is also an argument to be made for allowing communities—and, similarly, countries—to make their own decisions regarding the people living within them. In the same way that women, as individuals, deserve the freedom to pursue lives they value without constraint due to their gender, communities also deserve to be free from the imposition of values and institutions from other communities. On a national level, this is known as sovereignty—the right of every country’s ruling government to be the ultimate authority on political matters, without the interference of another state. But there are subtler ways that “outsiders”—be them governments, NGOs, international financial institutions, or individuals—can impose values on other countries, particularly if the imposing country has more political and economical might.
By influencing culture, and setting international norms to which individual countries can be judged for how “developed” they are, politically and economically dominant nations—typically those in the Western world—pressure less dominant nations into accepting hegemonic values and standards of success, regardless of their cultural relevancy. According to cultural relativists, this would constitute a form of neo-imperialism, in which the norms of one country or culture are dictated over another, even if they do not agree with them.
As with the argument supporting the right of women to be equal to men, this argument comes down to the concept of agency. It is the ability to have control over your own life that gives it dignity and meaning. Having your beliefs, values, and decisions dictated for you by an “outsider,” particularly one that does not necessarily understand or appreciate your unique culture, is a violation of this agency. Intervening in another country or culture, even under the banner of liberation or human rights, assumes the “recipient” culture values the same outcomes as the intervening country. In this instance, the intervening country is taking away another country’s or culture’s right to be autonomous and exercise agency in decision-making regarding their own people.
III. When Rights Conflict: Reconciling Contradictions
These two ethical considerations—the rights of all women, and the right for communities to demonstrate autonomy in decision-making regarding their own people—can, and often do, present a contradiction for those working in the field of international development. For example, if a community claims to value women for domestic work over political leadership, and based on these values forbids them from running for public office, does someone outside of this community have any legitimacy in claiming the community is abusing women’s rights? After all, the “outsider” is basing these accusations on standards that have been developed overwhelmingly by cultures that value things similar to his or her own.
To get an idea about the values in Moroccan society on which laws are based, let us take a look at the laws regarding the rights of women in Morocco. While the Moudawana is based on the teachings of Islam, the King, in his role as Commander of the Faithful, has a strong impact on how the religion is interpreted and implemented. During the drafting stages of the new family code laws, the King created a Royal Commission that formed the basis of the Moudawana by synthesizing aspects of Islamic religious law (sharia), legal reasoning (itjihad), Islamic principles of fairness, and universal human rights standards (Zoglin, 2009). The new laws, substantially more progressive than those that came before them, are supposedly based on the same religion and “values” as the old, traditional laws. If the same religion and set of values can produce two completely opposite sets of laws, is it really accurate to think of Moroccan (and Islamic) culture as one homogenous collection of people who all favor one lifestyle over others?
As with every country and religion, Morocco and Islam have diverse traditions and interpretations, ones that oftentimes contradict one another. Moroccan society is not homogeneously conservative, just as Islam is not homogeneously or even inherently misogynistic. There are a number of progressive trends in Moroccan society, those that are secular as well as those that are based on Islamic principles. Even within Islam, a religion often portrayed by the West as a severe, traditional belief system hostile to women’s rights, there are precedents for gender equality, and many would even claim it is overall a progressive religion in this regard.
One such thinker is Fatema Mernissi, a Moroccan Sufi feminist who has drawn from Islam a particularly progressive message of equality between the genders. According to Mernissi, over time male Muslim scholars have twisted the original message of the Prophet Mohammed in order to serve their own political ends. Through a complicated process of legitimizing certain hadeeth—quotes, anecdotes, and teachings supposedly from the life of the Prophet—these scholars have allowed false and misleading hadeeth to perpetuate ideas about women that the Prophet never intended to be part of his message (Mernissi, 1991). In this view, it is entirely possible to align the supposedly “Western” value of women’s rights with the teachings of Islam. Even just the existence of an alternative “insider” interpretation, regardless of the fact that it is an explicitly feminist interpretation, suggests that the idea of cultures and countries as homogenous in their values is a false one.
Thus, as Sen claimed in The Idea of Justice, thinking about the argument in terms of “East” versus “West” does not capture the intricacies and complexities of the issue. “There are powerful traditions of reasoned argument, rather than reliance on faith and unreasoned convictions, in India’s intellectual past, as there are in the thoughts flourishing in a number of other non-Western societies,” he claims (Sen, 2009). While it is important to understand and respect the very real differences that do arise between countries and cultures, thinking of them homogeneously and antagonistically does not appreciate the complex nature of intersecting identities and the blurry lines that separate “communities” from one another.
IV. Conclusion
As part of her faith, Fatema Mernissi emphasizes the important Sufi concept of “the Stranger,” or outsider. According to Sufi tradition, safar, or travel, is an essential element of self-discovery, and is the only way one can truly grow and regenerate oneself. Travel exposes one to “the Stranger,” which communication with and understanding of is supposed to bring about peace and prosperity (Mernissi, 2004). It is “the Stranger” who holds up a mirror to one’s own life, so that one can better understand both oneself and the world. According to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, “One of the images Sufis use to describe the task of traversing the path is to polish his or her mirror to become the best, most accurate, and transparent divine reflector possible, which is the best way to love God back” (Rauf, 2004).
Within Islamic traditions themselves, cross-cultural dialogue is important for personal growth and development. The more cultures communicate openly and freely about their beliefs and values, the more apparent it becomes that, alongside apparent differences, there are overlapping fundamental ideas about justice and rightness. The idea of gender equality is not a new idea developed by the West and being imposed upon the Muslim world—strains of feminist thought have been part of Islam since its founding (and, as some would argue, as an integral part of its founding). “Something so ordinary as the suffrage process—the people filing to the voting booth to express their choice—will be seen in our day, despite the principle of equality for all, as a foreign idea imported by the West” (Mernissi, 1991).
What, then, is the ethical role of the Westerner, “the Stranger,” in promoting women’s rights in a country like Morocco? On one hand, there is a compelling argument for correcting injustices any group may suffer, regardless of the country in which they live. On the other hand, there is also a compelling argument for allowing communities and countries to have the autonomy to make decisions regarding their own people. However, this second argument operates on the assumption that cultures are inherently distinct from one another, and that foreign intervention involves the imposition of one culture’s values on another. I would like to argue that this way of thinking about cultures, and exchanges between them, is overly simplistic. Moroccan culture, and the culture of Islam from which it heavily draws, is no more inherently misogynistic than “Western” culture or the Judeo-Christian values from which it draws. The idea that the “Western” world has a monopoly on gender equality, and imposes this value on reluctant “Eastern” countries, ignores the complexity of cultures.
The belief that all people, regardless of gender, are equal is not unique to the West; it is also an integral part of Islamic thought and Moroccan culture. Thus, by supporting the promotion of women’s rights in Morocco, a Westerner—whether it is a government, NGO, or individual—is not imposing outside values. From an ethical standpoint, Western institutions ought to promote women’s rights through a framework that integrates Moroccan and Islamic thought and language, in order to improve and respect both women’s and communities’ right to fully enjoy the agency to lead the lives they choose.