paves the way for political egalitarianism, and her argument is strong in a civil-war torn country like El Salvador. However, with her exclusive focus on this Central American state, she fails to consider various alternative circumstances. Firstly, the author neglects situations in which international actors close the opportunity structure. For example, according to a UN report on Women’s Human Rights, Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party ratified the Iraqi Provisional Constitution in 1970 in order to consolidate the party’s authority and achieve economic growth. This ensured women’s right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. Due to economic sanctions imposed by the UN, however, the position of women within Iraqi society has deteriorated rapidly since the 1991 Gulf War. Female enrollment in schools has decreased with growing financial struggles, and new laws have forced them out of the labor force and into more traditional roles due to the constriction of the economy.3 Zamudio’s argument, therefore, does not hold true for internationally intertwined Iraq. She mostly looks inward into a Central American country where civil war is geographically bound, and free from restrictive impositions of exogenous agents such as the UN. This does not mean that the United Nations did not participate in the El Salvador conflict resolution. Unlike its role in Iraq, however, it acted as a helpful engineer of internal mechanisms and domestic consensus building, thereby opening political opportunity structures and allowing for the proposal of the gender issue.4 Frequently, with the presence of international actors that constrict an economy (as in Iraq) economic woes and the attenuation of poverty become the priority and gender issues are easily neglected. Furthermore, in ‘War, Women and Lessons from El Salvador,’ Zamudio neglects the importance of a highly influential variable in the modern world: religion. In Central America and most Latin American countries, religion plays a substantial role because of the perception of Catholic male priests as human links to God. In turn, this “confianza model” reinforces a patrimonial social order. Religion is even more influential in the Middle East, and states such as Iran fervently advocate the fusion of religion with politics, justifying the subordination of women with the word of God. Sura 4:34 in the Koran states,
Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Allah is high and supreme.
Assuming the opening of a political structure, how can women achieve socio-political equality if Islam manifestly states that they are inferior to males, and if religion is directly linked to governmental organization and policies? Are there other mechanisms apart from conflict that can pave the way for gender equality? Beyond Zamudio’s claim, social forces can indeed serve as potential avenues for gender egalitarianism. The author highlights the advantages of conflict as a creator of political opportunities, but fails to examine the gains that social movements can attain in the political arena without the presence of war. For example, since the 1980s, Algerian Islamic feminist organizations have persistently pushed for legal and political reform despite state arrests and condemnation as “social terrorists.” The Algerian women’s movement exemplifies the Muslim feminist position and has been largely successful by framing reform along religious lines. They have focused on a reinterpretation of Islam through a rereading of the Koran, and advocate the recuperation of their religion to undermine patriarchical distortions. Algerian women’s involvement in the judiciary has begun to increase; in 2001, women constituted 25 percent of judges and currently have five cabinet positions, the largest number in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) states.5 The Algerian case proves that social movements can independently create their
44