Amirah Kashgari
Al-Madinah
I was shocked, just as others were, when I read that the Committee of Municipal Elections is going to impose a SR10,000 fine on male and female candidates who intermingle inside election centers. There are two reasons that this fine has been imposed: First, the campaign launched by opponents of women participating in municipal elections. These people are furious and indignant because women have been given a chance to take part in elections. Second, the committee’s positive response to these campaigns.
There is no doubt that the mainstream discourse about women in our society tends to take a hardline approach. However, we never thought that such discourse would be reduced to this level and involve the imposing of fines on any form of intermingling. Women are everywhere. They are in the Shoura Council and can be seen working doing different jobs. Women work as saleswomen, managers, coordinators, doctors, anchors and TV presenters. They can be seen with men inside the Grand Mosque and the Prophet’s Mosque.
Women’s participation in the municipal elections will culminate in their journey toward more political participation, and women deserve the chance because they are educated, competent and able to shoulder responsibility. All female candidates in elections are adults who have considerable experience in their fields and I am sure they want the elections to be as successful as possible.
When they intermingle with men, they will raise men’s awareness about the position of women in society and change the stereotypes men have about women, which by the way have been instilled in the minds of many men and need dispelling.
Therefore, there is no need to impose fines and place requirements that women need to appoint male representatives to act on their behalf at meetings and in other programs. There is also no need to require female candidates to sign contracts with PR agencies to handle their campaigns.
The question posed by the chairman of the election committee is really interesting. He asked what need there was to allow female candidates to talk to male voters. I do not know what he meant by that. Was he indirectly saying that there was no use in allowing women to participate in the elections in the first place? Maybe he did not have enough courage to say so directly. We, as women, can ask the same question: what is the use of allowing male candidates to talk to male voters?
