Iran is far from a secular nation, and its laws state that it is compulsory for women to wear a hijab in public. On September 16, 22 year old Mahsa Amini was arrested for her failure to comply adequately with the aforementioned law, and she died in custody shortly thereafter due to complications which were likely linked to police brutality. Amini’s death has sparked a new, deeply powerful wave of anti-government protests led primarily by Iranian women who both wish for an end to the mandatory nature of the hijab and who call for greater women’s rights within the nation. In the less mainstream camps of protesters there are even those who call for the dismantling of the Islamic Republic as it stands. This most recent turn of events has made lucid that the current Iranian government will never allow greater political power to be extended to women, and that the only true way forward is through the dissolution of the theocracy.
This is far from the first time that women in Iran have protested the continued inequality imposed upon them. From the very inception of the Islamic Republic, there have been protests to its sweeping limitations on women’s rights, rights which had only recently been extended to women by the Shah during Iran’s White Revolution. The years 1979, 2009, and 2017, all mark years of major women’s protests, and yet regardless of the size of the movement or the fervor with which the issue itself was approached, these demonstrations have always failed and been put down violently. These protests all shared the same goal as the current one: to expand women’s rights and amend discriminatory laws within Iran. The mandatory nature of the hijab, in particular, has been fought against for nearing 44 years now, and the Iranian government has simply not given way. The sheer brutality and authoritarian nature of the Iranian security apparatus, one which silences dissidents by means of violence and imprisonment, has prevented any real, tangible change regarding women’s rights from creeping its way into Iranian society. This protest has been treated no differently. Over 12,000 people have been arrested and the death toll has reached almost 250.
The Iranian government’s zealousness, particularly that of its leaders, will forever prevent Iranian women from being granted further rights. The current jurisprudence of Iran has ruled against women time and time again, and this translates to a judicial system that truly cannot work in favor of women without contradicting itself. For illustration’s sake, if a past ruling justifies a policy which discriminates against women, then, without overturning the case in a higher court, one cannot perform an action which works towards greater equality without contradicting the past ruling. It is worth nothing that the higher courts are often dominated by theologians most akin to governmental leaders in thought. It is because the justice system works so intrinsically and fervently against women that it has become a framework that is nearly impossible to navigate with the purpose of furthering women’s rights.
As for individual roles, arguably the only role of importance for enacting absolute change in Iran is that of the office of Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is “inviolable,” meaning it is illegal to question or insult him, his control over government proceedings is unequaled, and he is personally responsible for Iran’s foreign and domestic policy. Without the Supreme Leader’s assent, no internal change can occur in Iran. If ever there was a Supreme Leader who could find religious or political justification to grant further rights to women, then regime change or anything approaching that would not be completely necessary; however, the successor to the role of Supreme Leader is appointed by the Assembly of Experts, a board of Islamic experts appointed by the current Supreme Leader. This is to say that the Supreme Leader gets to choose the sort of thinkers that will elect his successor, and consequently it is more than reasonable to say that the Supreme Leader’s successor will often be quite similar to the last. No change of the sort that is required now, therefore, could come in a timely manner. Change might occur in 50 to 60 years, but not in the span of a few, short years that would be just and as is owed to the people of Iran. And even that idea of a Supreme Leader ever supporting the furthering of women’s rights is optimistic, and in my view flatly naive.
Islam is, of course, open to interpretation in any number of ways, but the theocratic nature of Iran means that the scholars permitted to rise to the top are largely those who further the oppressive views of old, and because the religious views of scholars become codified as law and are integrated into the culture, theocracy results in a system where the status quo is nearly impossible to rise above as a marginalized group. Most government officials, after all, are one of those chosen scholars. In practice, the theocracy of Iran is a self-reinforcing system which excels at the smothering of freedom, the centralization of the state, and the expression of, but a singular branch of Islam. So long as the power structure which exists today lasts into the future, the Iranian government will do everything that it can to maintain the status quo and to prevent what they view as being religiously sanctioned from being upset.
So long as the current Iranian government persists, the case of Amini will be repeated over and over and over. Iranian women will always be subject to discriminatory laws and to judicial mistreatment since the theocratic structure they live under refuses to see them as equals to men. Truly, theocracy in Iran cannot adequately serve its people. It is consistently oppressive and reactionary, failing to move with the standards of the modern day. If a future for women in Iran is desired, it can only be achieved through revolutionary means which result in the restructuring or the destruction of the Islamic Republic.
I have been asked why I might write a piece on this subject given that I have no personal stake in the matter. Advancing the cause of equality and equity, herein referring to gender equality, should not require a justification. We must condemn state actors who fail their citizens or who actively work against them. For democratization, liberalization, and interdependence within and of the global system, which itself should yield greater civil liberties for all groups, states must be checked and balanced just as they are on the national level. The Iranian government has transgressed heavily against their own citizens since their state’s very inception in its modern form, and the longer we ignore it or set it upon the sidelines of our own thoughts, the more complicit in the actions we become. Obviously, we cannot stand idly by and hold our tongues, even if further caution with regards to diplomatic force and power projection is now imperative.
