On February 3rd, 1870, the fifteenth amendment to the United States constitution was ratified. This amendment was part of several others that saw the light after the Civil War ended. In a nutshell, it gave former slaves the right to vote and dictated that neither states nor the federal government can use citizens’ race, color, or former state of servitude to prohibit them from practicing their right to vote. Here is the exact text of the amendment:
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Now although the fifteenth amendment was not respected in many states after its immediate implementation and although the South continued to discriminate against people of color and might have even gotten more creative/violent doing so, it (the fifteenth amendment) did pave the way for future quests for equality on the part of African-Americans.
At that, how often do Arab constitutions get amended? And perhaps more important is the question of whether they get amended in positive, socially progressive ways (when they do get tweaked, that is) or in more restrictive, totalitarian democracy-wraps.
In an interesting little research I did tonight, I found out that the Jordanian Constitution says, in Chapter Two- Article 6 (ii) , that “the Government shall ensure work and education within the limits of its possibilities, and it shall ensure a state of tranquillity and equal opportunities to all Jordanians.”
However, after I inspected the Jordanian Labor Law, I found that women are not given equal rights as men in the workplace or even in their choice of a profession. Here’s what the Labor Law says in Article 69, conveniently titled “The Limits Applied to the Hiring of the Woman“:
The following shall be set pursuant to a resolution to be made by the Minister after inquiring about the opinion of the competent official parties:
A- The industries and works for which women may not be hired.
B- Times at which women may not be caused to be working and the cases excluded from the same.
In effect, then, the government has decidedly phrased the labor law in a way that explicitly contradicts the constitution. Moreover, it has been so unabashed in labelling women as unequal to men in competence and merit by titling and detailing Article 69 as seen above.
To step back to a previous point I mentioned, I do not think the Jordanian Constitution needs to be amended in this instance. It is the ambivalent sexist Labor Law that grants women the right to work but only in some professions as deemed appropriate by a patriarchal society, and is unashamed to put limitations restricting women’s potential blatantly, in an article of their own.
A fitting question may now be placed on the competence of the men who phrased this law, and on the readiness of the men that today dominate the political scene in Jordan to take steps to amend it. In a highly tribal and predominantly male parliament, I doubt much hope can be placed on progressive change.
My bet would be placed on more investigation to be done by activists and intellectuals, anyone interested in social progress really, on issues of gender and discrimination against women in Jordanian law and culture. I for one had no idea that the Constitution and the Labor Law contradict in such a way, and I had no clue that the Labor Law is as backwardly sexist as it turned out to be.
If Jordanian women are equated to former slaves in the United States (and Jordanian women are indeed enslaved in more ways than one at present), and their right to pursue a profession they see fit as the right of former slaves to vote – then what we have is a parable that we just might learn from.
The fifteenth amendment only had temporary immediate effects on the situation of former slaves. Local “voting qualification” laws were enforced in the South to swivel around it and to prevent Black voters from practicing their constitutional rights.
Our own Labor Law is very similar to these laws. It prevents Jordanian women from practicing their constitutional right to “equal opportunities.” The only difference being that the Southern local laws oppressing African-Americans date back to the 1890’s, while our Labor Law is still practiced in 2007.
Dismay aside, there are several ways to challenge Article 69 of the Labor Law. Awareness among women has to be emphasized. As I mentioned above, I only found out about this naked contradiction and scandalous legal sexism tonight – by pure chance. I doubt most Jordanian women, working women specifically, know about it.
Awareness may be a positive step towards change, but it is not enough. As positive as it is, it is not aggressive to a degree as to achieve anything on its own. A stronger presence for women empowerment societies and associations has to become reality. Social activists, women and men, must take action to see an end to legal discrimination against women in Jordan.
On a final note, thorough review of the Jordanian laws and legal framework has to be administered by a non-sexist government. Consider the phrasing of Article 6 (i) of the Jordanian Constitution: “Jordanians shall be equal before the law. There shall be no discrimination between them as regards to their rights and duties on grounds of race, language or religion.”
How about adding the word “gender” just so we make sure 50% of the population is not left out?
