Amany Abulfadl Farag* finds the feminist agenda of the Arab reports of human development far too heavy-handed The Arab Report of Human Development (AHDR) has always been accorded a controversial, more often than not unfriendly, reception, a result of general Arab suspicion of the West, as symbolised by the UN and those domestic agencies affiliated to and funded by it. Some consider the act of monitoring itself an aggression against national sovereignty while others consider the UN to be no longer reliable or trusted. Yet others consider the socially concerned UN bodies (UNIFEM, UNISEF, UNDP, etc...) whose methodology informs the report to be dominated by radical feminist figures whose repulsive language excludes all "others" and imposes alien visions, challenging Arabic value system and identity. An impartial reading of the Arab Report of Human Development 2005, however, reveals some positive steps towards a greater recognition, and mutual understanding, of others. For the first time the report suggests all voices should be heard and trends represented. It belatedly acknowledges the multiplicity of Islamic discourses and differentiates between those radical and moderate groups which understand Islamic issues, including issues relating to women. Appreciating the positive aspects of the report should not, however, keep us from raising some questions about facts referred to in the text. The report claims that women in the Arab world are not realising their full potential and are still denied equality of opportunity. Much of Arab society, though realising the importance of women's advancement, are worried by characterisations such as that made by the writer of the Time magazine article "What's holding back Arab women?" "A long-awaited report," says the article, "paints a devastating picture that shows that the plight of Arab women extends far beyond debates over the veil." But are Arab women really devastated? With all due respect to the statistics quoted by the report about the low levels of political participation of women in the Arab world we can ask exactly who the women are that have been striking for almost two months in Beirut demanding political change? Who are the women in Chad who dominated the election scene? Who are the women in Bahrain who queued in long lines waiting to vote? And what about the female candidates whose pictures filled Bahraini streets? Did they fail in the election for gender or for sectarian reasons? Did anyone miss the clip on TV covering the bloody battle, led by women, in Beit Hanun in occupied Palestine? And what Western female leader can be compared to Jamilah Shanty, the Palestinian MP and leader of the battle? Do the compilers of the report define political participation only in terms of official representation, which in the Arab world is conditioned less by gender than by the power of money and corruption? Should we not consider those Egyptian women who demonstrated against "hereditary rule" despite police violence and sexual harassment as being political participants? Is the low participation of women in two or three Gulf countries an honest mirror of 22 Arab countries or is such stereotyping a serious methodological error? What should we believe, abstract figures or live pictures? As for its economic dimensions, the report reveals dreadful rates of poverty among women. The prevailing discourse of the report promotes a gendered reading of women's suffering. It appears convinced that gender inequality is one of the main obstacles to development in the Arab world. Phrases such as "prevailing male culture", "patriarchal society", "gender discrimination" recur throughout the report, though it seldom mentions other reasons for women's suffering. Economic failure, corruption, political oppression, armed conflicts in the region, scarcity of resources or else their theft by the rich hardly get a look in. Arab women expected the report to help them by identifying the real reasons for their troubles instead of placing gender discrimination, however important that is, in the spotlight. Yet feminist propaganda obscures their plight. This strategy of politicising the pains of poverty, illiteracy and health and using them in the cultural debate between Islam and the West acts only to obscure real problems. An example of the confusion of priorities can be found in the section entitled "Forms of violence against women in the Arab world". The report dedicates two pages (116- 118) to honour killings, domestic violence and female circumcision, while a single paragraph deals with women under occupation. Darfur doesn't get a mention. Honour killings claimed the lives of 20 women in Arab countries over a period of two years, says the report. Armed conflict has claimed the lives of 100,000 women in Iraq. No other regional UN Human Develop Report is so concentrated on women's issues. Does this mean that only Arab women suffer? Ninety per cent of French victims of violence are women, 30 per cent of American women are physically abused, thousands of female fetuses are aborted in India once the sex is known. Why don't regional reports focus on these facts and relate them to the problems of their countries? In Japan public opinion kept pushing the crown princess to beget a son to inherit the throne until she suffered a nervous breakdown. Are feminist activists unaware of this inhuman situation or are they too busy mocking leading Arab religious figures (p. 198) to care. It is the over-concentration on Arab women that makes Arab intellectuals doubtful about the report and not some convoluted conspiracy theory. Arab intellectuals refuse to allow Arab women to become a pretext for outside forces to impose their alien agendas. The fear of having women's issues will become the raison d'être for foreign interference is well founded -- the report, after all, stresses the importance of "external reform" (p. 63). Although the report differentiates between Islam and errant readings of its texts, it often mixes what the authors don't like in established Islamic texts (the Quran and authorised Sunna) and errant interpretations in a single context. These confusions deliver the message that Islamic law (Sharia) negatively impacts on the status of women, a message the Time magazine reporter did not miss when he claimed that "women's prospects are further weakened by regressive Islamic jurisprudence that effectively codifies discrimination against women". Despite seeking to allow a multiplicity of voices, the report allows one voice to dominate. The second half of the report, from chapter six on, which seeks to place women's issues within a cultural and social context, is a feminist masterpiece. Page 173 of the report negatively discredits family: "The family continues to be the first institution that reproduces patriarchal relationships and values through gender discrimination". Page 222 of the report openly calls for abortion. Page 185 of the report objects to labour laws preventing women from taking hazardous jobs on the grounds that this is a violation of equality. When the report chooses female models it posits only Nawal Al-Saadawy and Fatima Merneissi, ignoring writers from other trends. The authors of the report tend to "hide" the offensive writings of these "pioneers" so as not to affect their credibility. Typically, on page 156 the title of Ahlam Mustaghanimi's novel Abir Sarir ( Bed passerby) was changed into Abir Sabil or (Passer by). What is really upsetting about this feminist discourse is its double standards. While extolling democracy as the key to women's advancement, it hails one of the worst tyrants in the Arab world, the Tunisian president (p. 64), because he has met their feminist agenda in the Tunisian Personal Status Code, abolishing polygamy, permitting women to marry from a different faith and other serious breaches of Islamic law. "No serious political power in the Arab world can ignore the fact that religion, particularly Islam, is an essential wellspring of the cultural and spiritual life of the Arab people. Any force that ever engaged in Arab politics and that neglected that lesson ended up as either marginal or defunct, whatever temporary successes it enjoyed." That's on page 28 of the report. If only the UN had taken heed. * The writer is a member of the Egyptian Centre for Monitoring Women's Priorities (MARAM).
