Even though various discourses on the pros and cons and the necessity of reforms to the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) of 1951 have shown promising signs in the recent past, with Muslim activists also being more forthcoming, an incident that took place this week in the country’s main law making entity raises doubts as to how interested Muslim Parliamentarians are in seeing these reforms.
As was reported by The Daily Morning, a meeting organised to discuss the proposed amendments to the MMDA with the attendance of Muslim women who have been victimised due to the MMDA and Muslim MPs has not been successful, as all MPs representing the Muslim community, except for Sri Lanka Muslim Congress Leader and Samagi Jana Balawegaya Opposition MP, Attorney Rauff Hakeem, have purportedly boycotted the meeting. This meeting, organised by the Ministry of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms, was to be participated by around 15 Muslim MPs, who, according to victims of the MMDA, were expected to discuss the proposed amendments with the victims. The victims remained disheartened, as other Muslim MPs had briefly reached the meeting room only to go back without attending the meeting.
The fact that only one Muslim MP attended this meeting out of 15 been invited raises serious concerns about their role as lawmakers, especially when it comes to amending a law that has traditionally been labeled as a law that violates even the most rudimentary fundamental rights of Muslim women, and it shows a great lack of care on the part of the Muslim MPs. In a context where stakeholder consultations play a key role in taking important decisions, why these MPs are so reluctant to listen to the grievances of victims of a certain law is a question that they must answer. They may have their own opinions about the proposed amendments to the MMDA, some of which may even go against the majority’s opinion, and that is completely acceptable in a democracy, and they do not have to accept everyone’s opinions or demands. However, as public representatives and lawmakers, they should be mature enough to listen to opposing views first, weigh the pros and cons, and then take a prudent, practical decision.
More interestingly, it is not just the Muslim MPs’ role as lawmakers, that has been neglected. Amending the MMDA is a law reform that concerns Muslim MPs at a more personal level, the latter also due to their ethno-religious background. Hence, their absence is tantamount to neglecting a pressing need of their own community. In fact, not so long ago, some of them were vocal about reforms to the MMDA being a matter that concerns their community and that they are in the best position to discuss and take decisions on the matter. However, when an opportunity arises to actually contribute to these long drawn-out and much-demanded amendments to the MMDA in order to rid Muslim women of unfair laws, Muslim MPs keeping mum about the matter instead of taking a leadership role in this process shows how serious they are about supporting those changes.
Muslim MPs have another role that goes beyond their role as lawmakers and Muslim community members. That is, being a link between the majority of non-Muslim MPs and the Muslim community. Despite the fact that amending the MMDA concerns a particular ethno-religious group, at the end of the day, all 225 MPs have an equal role in accepting or rejecting the proposed amendments. Those MPs could take a more judicious decision regarding their vote if Muslim MPs actively acted as a link between their community and non-Muslim MPs to convey their communities’ needs and issues.
This is one aspect of Sri Lanka’s political culture that needs to be changed. Lawmakers should have the strength and openness to listen to different groups, and work democratically and diplomatically with people who do not share the same opinions. They should prioritise their role as public representatives.