Fuzzy Signals

The Power of a Prize?

If this blog is about spotting signals, I feel compelled to mention an obvious one: Shirin Ebadi, the first Muslim woman and Iranian human rights lawyer, winning of the 2003 Noble Peace prize. (For the official Noble Prize news release and Ebadi's biography go to the Noble Prize website .)

This event is interesting on several levels. First, it has been fascinating to watch how this prize is being interpreted through the various media sources. The widely mixed responses, from euphoria and national pride, to outright cynicism, to rejection and criticism of the prize as a tool of Western imperialism and control, underscores just how important it is to watch and read multiple media platforms. This is one of the great advantages of the web and blogs, which makes the triangulation of perspectives (pentangulation if you have the energy) so much easier. You also access information through organizations like FAIR (Fair and Accurate Reporting).

The mixed reaction to Madam Ebadi's prize within Iran is the most interesting. It's an important sign, in the words of my Mexican friend, Alfredo Narvaez, of a new political complexity in Iran, "on that goes well beyond the static, traditional one" Ebadi may seem like a "social anamoly in her culture but "she is just the tip of the iceberg" – meaning, there is a great deal more going on beneath her in the society at large. I think this is right, and something the mainstream press need to correct if we are going to see (and not be surprised by) where and when the major shifts will come in Iran. To read more about this complexity, check out Christopher de Bellaigue's work, especially "Who Rules Iran?" in The New York Review of Books.Any other sources which describe the Iranian landscape, in its full richness and complexity, are welcome.

Most analyses are very bleak about the future of Iran. The latest report on Arab Human Development makes this clear; and the plight of Iranian women, in particular, is not pretty – the rate of declining literacy rates and other regressive statistics is truly depressing. 'Assertive' women are still being targeted as the recent killing of Canadian-Iranian woman, Zahra Kazem, poignantly reminds us. (Speaking of ‘assertive women', I was held for half a day in a Malaysian immigration jail for jumping to a shorter queue during Ramadan. There is more to the story, of course, but my bold movements were instrumental in my treatment.) We should also have modest expectations about Ebadi triggering significant change within Iran, even with her new-found status. For all of her good works, she is unlikely to do this. Shadi Sadr, who is "a courageous and talented newspaper correspondent" according to The Economist, makes the distinction between two groups fighting for woman's rights: "First there are those who believe that piecemeal legal reform, underpinned by an enlightened approach to Shia jurisprudence, can solve woman's problems. She [Sadr] puts Ms. Ebadi, who insists on the essential compatibility of Islam and human rights, into this category. Secondly, there is the more radical group that "take issue less with laws than with the whole legal superstructure." (Special Report, October 18^th, 2003)

This negative assessment of Iran's future may be right, but I also think this view is ignoring the complexity of the situation. There is a possibility of a longer term upside scenario where deeper demographic and social trends, together with other forces of globalization, push Iran in a more positive (for them and hopefully the rest of the world) direction. As Stewart Brand, GBN's cofounder often says, the pessimists are right in the short term whereas the optimists are usually right in the long term. Perhaps the modest but significant changes in Saudi Arab, triggered by the pressures of their underdevelopment, are a harbinger of other changes that may occur in places like Iran?

Something also needs to be said, or at least conjectured, about the politics of these awards and why this particular prize was awarded to a moderate Islamic woman. Sure this smacks of political opportunism; sure they had to scour the world, high and low, for the "right" kind of candidate. Regardless of motivations, I say bravo to them for their preciosity and sanctioned subterfuge! This is a good example of a much more constructive and farsighted way for the Western world to engage with the moderate Islamic community. The "better future scenario," to my mind, surely has chapter where the moderate Islamic world take control over their own destiny, succeed (even a little bit) in meeting the economic and social needs of their peoples, and thus win the battle against extreme forces who base their worldview on hatred and absolutes. The West must help them win this battle, not through imposed solutions or "hard" forms of power (contrary to the current, American-led geopolitical trajectory) but through softer mechanisms of influence and assistance. This award is clearly an example of the latter.

Many people will question the real impact of such a prize. Aung San Suu Kyi, the tireless, almost saint-like Burmese opposition leader, was also a recipient of this award in 1991 and look at her – still fighting a hard, slightly hopeless battle. So the cynical part of me understands the desire to poo-pooh such ‘superficial' tokens of recognition. At the same time, it is possible to imagine how these gold-plated awards trigger many unanticipated and subtle knock-on effects, not to mention bolster the brand equity of a certain cause and people. With a million causes to choose from, it's much easier when fund-raising in this resource-constrained environment to point to the latest cause celebre sanctioned by certain intelligentsia. This is good news.

On a higher level, this award is an important psychological lift for an extremely proud Persian people, a people with an ancient and accomplished civilization which gave our western world many things. Of course, many Westerners, even those in power, seem to be unaware of this history or think it's irrelevant. At the crudest level, all these people know is that America is now on top, and the losers must have lost for a reason. I'm not advocating the Clash of the Civilization thesis (which I disagree with) nor am I going to start condemning or explaining "why the West won" (which is complicated and full many conflicting assumptions and motivations). All I want to point out, here, is that the power differentials and differences between the Superpowers and the Islamic world, especially after the Cold War era and doubly so post-September 11^th, could be handled with much more respect and sensitivity. For many generations now, Iran and other parts of the proud Islamic world have suffered many indignities – especially the humiliations of increasing poverty – that have festered and swollen into a cancer we call now anti-western sentiment. So anything that can boost the bruised dignity and confidence of a once proud people is a good thing in my books. This is just common sense, based on truisms in human nature. We like to be respected. We like fair process. This matters a great deal when it comes to lubricating the sticky activities of human affairs. Why doesn't the current Bush administration understand this? It's so basic!

Now, I'm not a bleeding heart utopian – idealistic, yes, but with a solid dose of pragmatism and ability to see hard realities. Things are inherently messy and ugly in the halls of politics, and power differences are a fact of life. But we can get much further if we learn how to handle these differences better, with more attention to how these power differences incubate further misperceptions, antagonisms, and thus retaliatory actions. As Bob Fuller puts it, in his fantastic book, Sombodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank, "difficulties arise only when these differences are used as an excuse to abuse, humiliate, exploit, and subjugate." Fuller points out the simple but wise observation that there is a universal desire for respect, and while we can't ensure equality of outcomes in this world – there is just too much diversity amongst us for this idea of the Enlightenment – we can say without disclaimer that human beings are all equal in dignity and entitled to this. "Dignity is not negotiable," Fuller emphatically states. Not coincidentally, I believe Islamic thought and teaching has something to say to use about this. (I wish I knew what, exactly, but that is my sense. I'll be sure to ask my Muslim friends for their views on the matter.)

In sum, then, I think this award was given with all of these intentions, intentions that again mark the widening gap between Western Europe and America. It's hard to imagine this particular choice happening if this award was given from an American domicile rather than a liberal Swedish one. It's therefore quiet humorous to hear Iranian hard-line clerics condemn this award as being the bidding of the American administration. I think not. At the end of the day, the real reason I'm tickled with this award is that it's a cheeky f-you to conservative forces, which include the Iranian clerics but also the posturing American neo-cons who would like to remake the world in their image. And this view of mine, I'm afraid, is not very respectful. Oh dear. Back to square one, I think.

Posted by nicole at October 26, 2003 11:40 AM