Source: Getty
commentary

Arguing About Family Law in Jordan: Disconnected Spheres

Activist groups rarely talk to each other in public, and when they do, their discourses aim primarily at mobilizing support within their own camps rather than addressing each other's concerns.

by Nathan J. BrownLamis El Muhtaseb, and Abdul-Wahab Kayyali
published by
International Journal of Middle East Studies
 on September 30, 2016

Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies

The polarization of politics in many Arab societies, on full and even violent display since the uprisings of 2011, has been evident for decades. Adherents of various ideological orientations have advanced sharply different visions of a good society in debates about public policy. Many appear to be talking past each other, basing their conceptions of morality and rights on such widely different sources that they argue in separate worlds. The divisions have often been sharpest on gender issues. Disagreements over constitutional revision, personal status law, honor crimes, and other matters often polarize between those who anchor their arguments in Islamic legal thought and those who turn instead to liberal conceptions of rights, sometimes relying on international human rights instruments. Can politics—understood as the struggle over public policy outcomes—help fellow citizens bridge those differences? Or do members of each camp talk largely among themselves, only deepening their divisions?...

Read the full article at the International Journal of Middle East Studies

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.