The patriarchal state by name
embodies a state that perpetuates the interests of particular group- men. It
follows then that it is not a neutral entity but is in reality a system that
allows for the systematic dominance of men over women.
Was the Hudood Ordinance of 1979
in Zia ul Haq’s regime the result of a patriarchal state? Or was it the result
of his own biases against women stimulated through culture and religion?
There is no doubt that the Hudood Ordinance was a state level effort to diminish the little existing women rights in Pakistan however, it is not a testimony to the existence of patriarchal states. Within the same state, Article 51 of the constitution mandates the reservation of 60 seats for women in the National Assembly ensuring that women get representation even in the patriarchal society of Pakistan.
There is no doubt that the Hudood Ordinance was a state level effort to diminish the little existing women rights in Pakistan however, it is not a testimony to the existence of patriarchal states. Within the same state, Article 51 of the constitution mandates the reservation of 60 seats for women in the National Assembly ensuring that women get representation even in the patriarchal society of Pakistan.
The state then, in essence
becomes a neutral tool used by different governments to pursue their own
interests; be it patriarchal or otherwise. Patriarchy is manifested in
societies in both the private and public spheres but is the result of values
held and endorsed by societies due to cultural and/or religious influences- it
is not something inherent in states themselves.
2 comments:
I agree that the state is indeed meant to be a neutral tool, though it is wielded to advance the particular interests of elected governments far too often.
I think in this case the distinction between State and government need to be understood. A state may be neutral, in theory at least. As it represents the permenant interests of society, that is the common good or the general will. Government on the other hand, represents the partisan sympathies of those who happen to be in power at a particular time. So, by this distinction Zia Ul Huq's regime (the government, not the state) can be held responsible for inflicting patriarchy upon our society in form of a law.
Post a Comment