Introduction
Governments make rules for the way societies should live and how their rights should be realized. However, not all governance types help to advance human rights and fight inequality. Instead, there are such approaches to the government to make the problem of inequality even worse. Indeed, when comparing democracy and theocracy, one can state that these two types of government are opposite due to their views on human rights and equality. The rights of minority groups are particularly caused by the type of government that has the decisive power in a society. Thus, the theocratical government makes the life of minorities difficult, marginalizing them and exposing them to a variety of manifestations of inequality. This argumentative essay is aimed at claiming that theocratical governments create inequality for minority groups, which is illustrated by the limited rights of women in Afghanistan and the Black communities in Yemen.
Particularities of Theocratical Governments
Among the many forms of governance, there are those contributing to social equality and those hindering it. In particular, when discussing the meaning of the term theocratical government, one should specifically refer to its reliance on a deity or a god whose representatives govern the country. In particular, theocracy is based on the principles of inequality where some individuals have more opportunities due to their status as gods’ representatives, which gives them the power to distribute resources and influence accordingly (Brettschneider 1128). In such a manner, a decisive aspect of a theocratical government is religion and its values, beliefs, and worldview patterns. Since such considerations exclude the opportunities for free religious affiliation, they violate human rights and make the life of marginalized groups risky and inhumane.
Indeed, democracies have anti-theocratic principles, which help democratic societies reach equality for all populations. According to research, “government actions are theocratic when they fail to satisfy a requirement of “secular independence,” namely that the state must have available secular reasons for laws in addition to any religious reasons (Brettschneider 1128-1129). Thus, independence in religious affiliation is an attribute of democracy, while the lack of it in theocracy causes inequality issues. Moreover, “although religious reasons might legitimately be given for laws, these reasons must also be explainable on non-religious terms” (Brettschneider 1128-1129). Thus, the lack of non-religious justification for the social and legal exclusion of minorities in theocratical societies makes them threatening to the well-being and safety of marginalized groups.
Violation of Women’s Rights in Afghanistan
When supporting the argument of the adverse effects of theocratical governments on the rights of minority groups, one should refer to specific manifestations of the issue that demonstrate its scope. In particular, one of the most vivid implications of the theocratical government on the life of marginalized populations is its impact on women residing in Afghanistan. In particular, as stated by Farooqi, after several public cases of misogyny, “Afghanistan was named one of the worst countries in the world for women to live” (106). Inequality oof rights between men and women is seen in all aspects of life, ranging from education and employment to financial independence and marital decision-making. Researhc states that gender inequality “is in large part due to the cultural and religious norms that remain prevalent and control how society operates” (106). Since the religion-based government intentionally normalizes the diminished roles of women, their rights are systematically violated under a theocracy.
Multiple examples of men’s oppression of women in Afghanistan indicate that the distribution of power and influence within the theocratical society is unequal. Indeed, women are disproportionately underrepresented in leadership positions and higher education. As stated by Hayward and Karim, only recently, there have been “changes with higher education growing from no women students or faculty to 14% women faculty members and 28% women students in 2016” (5). Such numbers are significantly lower than in developed democracies, which is similar to the inequalities observed in other domains of life. For example, under religious views dominating Afghanistan’s government, women are marginalized and exposed to violence, the lack of housing, the inequlity of payment, and the lack of safety guarantees (Hayward and Karim 5-10). Therefore, it is evident that theocracy causes significant risks for women as a minority group in Afghanistan.
Discrimination Against Muhamasheen in Yemen
Similar to the manifestations of gender inequality and discrimination in Afghanistan, the exposure of the minority group Muhamacheen is disproportionate in Yemen due to the theocratical government in the state. Indeed, as stated by Carter and Kelly, “in Yemen, reports of violence targeting the Muhamasheen, including [gender-based violence], are common” (23). Muhamacheen is the marginalized Black community who have been socially and legally excluded due to its racial and religious features (Al-Warraq 3-4). Their life, well-being, and safety are particularly hindered due to the open discrimination against them from the government and society. It is alarming that in a theocratical society, the oppression of and discrimination against marginalized groups are normalized in social opinions, which makes the problem of inequality more disturbing and more difficult to solve.
Due to the theocratical considerations of the dominant population’s superiority in the light of its compliance with the religious views, the minorities like Muhamasheen are systematically discriminated against. It is socially and legally acceptable to refer to them as servants (Al-Warraq 4). Moreover, “social discrimination against the Muhamasheen limits their access to education, healthcare, housing, and meaningful work” (Al-Warraq 4). In addition, since Yemen’s theocratical government has a lineage-based social structure, the position of the minorities in this structure is difficult to improve. According to Carter and Kelly, the food insecurities and health inequalities experienced by Muhamasheen individuals might be categorized as a humanitarian crisis, which requires immediate action within the country (24). Thus, the root cause of such a devastating implication of theocratical governance in Yemen reveals that the transition to more democratic principles of governance might help in mitigating the inequality problems for minorities. It is particularly relevant in the context of the contemporary human rights-driven global community.
Conclusion
In summation, the investigation of the implications of theocratical governments on the rights and freedoms of minorities has indicated that the reliance of such governments on religious considerations complicates the life of minorities. In particular, the exclusion of women in Afghanistan and their treatment as subordinates to men makes them vulnerable in terms of housing, personal safety, education, and employment. Another example of the negative implications of theocracy for minorities is the endangered life of the Muhamasheen community in Yemen whose lives are put at-risk under a theocratical government. Thus, the disproportionate exposure of marginalized groups to discrimination in theocratical states supports the argument that theocracy contributes to inequality for minority groups, severely violating their human rights.
Works Cited
Al-Warraq, Aisha. “The Historic and Systematic Marginalization of Yemen’s Muhamasheen Community.” Sanaa Center for Strategic Studies, vol. 4, 2019, pp. 1-17.
Brettschneider, Corey. “Praying for America: The Anti-Theocracy and Equal Status Principles of the Free Exercise, Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses.” Brigham Young University Law Review, vol. 47, no.4, 2022, pp. 1128-1170.
Carter, Becky, and Luke Kelly. “Social Inequalities and Famine and Severe Food Insecurity Risk.”Knowledge, Evidence, and Learning for Development, 2021, Web.
Hayward, Fred M., and Razia Karim. “The Struggle for Higher Education Gender Equity Policy in Afghanistan: Obstacles, Challenges and Achievements.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 27, no.139, 2019, pp. 1-25.
Farooqi, Susan. “Misogyny and Lawlessness in Afghanistan: The Women’s Fight for Equal Rights.” Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, vol. 32, no. 2, 2019, pp. 105-136.