Open the Harems!

For years, “reform” has lost meaning in Iran’s judicial system. Anytime a law is amended or repealed under the guise of reform, rather than being brought into conformity with the times and social developments, it will become less in tune with social developments and popular demands.

The latest instance is legislation advanced by the Ninth Administration called “Family Support.” It is obvious that the authors of the bill meant something completely different than “support.” More interestingly, the bill’s introduction purports to address shortcomings in current law and “bring it up to date in accordance with today’s realities.”

The proposed bill will make it unnecessary to officially register “sighehs,” or temporary marriages. The result is that the male can abandon his sigheh wife whenever he wishes to , and enter into a permanent marriage with another woman.

What is the benefit of this legislation for the government? On the surface, the law purports to promote morality, but in reality, the government is frustrated by scores of single men and women who engage in pre-marital relations. However, rather than reconsidering its own mistaken decisions and policies, the government wants to relieve its police officers of some of their duties by lifting a requirement to officially register sighehs – this and nothing else. This is a way to support not families, but the government’s failed and ineffective policies that protrude into every aspect of people’s private lives. All the while, the government refrains from courageously admitting its mistakes and shortcomings.

When we read the bill, if we are not familiar with Iran, we think that all Iranian men are looking to marry multiple women and have pressured the government into adding Article 23 to the bill. According to this Article, a man no longer needs his first wife’s permission to marry a second woman. A man can marry multiple women with the court’s sole discretion. The court only requires the man to promise to he will treat his multiple wives justly.

When we read the bill, if we are not familiar with Iran, we think that lawmakers are still unaware that, in Iran, a large percentage of women attend law school. If they knew, they would not have added the word “if possible” to Article 2. The Article states, “A family court session can be held in the presence of three judges, one of whom may be female, if possible.” The Iranian lawmaker is unaware that “if possible” is not in accordance with today’s realities, and is discriminatory and unfair towards women.

What is the government pursing by passing this law? To support families or to destroy them? What is the point of such a legislation? To stubbornly oppose the women’s movement?

If the goal is to be stubborn, we cannot criticize the government. Yet we take it as our right to add “stubborn governance” into the country’s long list of political phrases. Now, why would a stubborn government even need to pass laws? Stubbornness does not require laws. A few secret decrees would do. Rebuilding harems would do. Why waste so much time?