Is the women's movement a political or a social movement?  Does the entry of the women's movement into election politics indicate the movement's political ambitions?  Does the women movement's public articulation of demands during this election season point to cooperation with the regime and, in a sense, the movement's abandonment of the independence of its social nature?  And…

 

Questions such as these have been asked repeatedly since the women movement's announcement that it was going to articulate its demands in the current election period.  These days, many critics condemn this social movement's entry into the political atmosphere as a sign of moving closer towards "power" and "political glory."  These very same critics, however, refuse to suggest alternative means for women to revive their political rights. 

 

The articulation of demands and addressing those in power means expanding the reach of the civil society to resist the government's policies.  For some time now, the articulation of women's demands has forced those in power to listen.  Do we know of another route other than the present route, which is the product of experiences, failures, sacrifices and achievements of women?  A route that would include all women - from all beliefs?

 

Those who have gathered around to address their demands with the presidential candidates, under the "Women's Coalition" banner, have taken a step away from their core group demands.  Undoubtedly, this movement in its infancy is not immune from making mistakes and errors, or from danger and suppression.  However, we cannot speak of the necessity for change in social and political structures as they concern women and at the same time refrain from articulating and addressing women's demands and practical ways of securing those demands on the public stage. 

 

We also know that, even if a candidate promises to pursue women's demand if election, there is no guarantee that such a development would take place.  However, that does not mean that women should not address their demands, or that they should not exert pressure for the implementation of their demands.

 

If a president believes in and is committed to equality and completes his duty towards women, then the women will have registered a serious victory.  But, if that were not the case, and the promises of the elected candidate were forgotten due to excuses of lacking political or administrative power, then women would still have made some progress: they would have succeeding in bringing unspoken realities to the surface and discussed them with the public.  What is more evident than ever, is that we have no recourse but to face up to and confront this chauvinistic power structure; and that they have no recourse but to listen and finally accept our demands. 

 

So, no activities of the women's movement at this time constitutes reactionary politics.  It is, however, the reaction of a social movement on the basis of political demands.  Women's Coalition is neither after political power nor does it speak about sanctions and votes.  It speaks only about its needs and demands.

 

Finally, this social movement is not immune from error.  Undoubtedly, like many other social and even political movements, the women's movement has made many mistakes.  Undoubtedly, rifts have emerged between us, some of which are rooted in our irreconcilable differences.  Even all of this, however, does not justify premature attacks and criticism towards the women's movement for articulating its political demands ahead of the election.  That, is unfair.