Burqa, Identity and Democracy: Sarkozy’s Flawed Logic

Nicolas Sarkozy is the first French President since 1848 to address both Houses of the French Parliament.  The speech at Château de Versailles was expected to elaborate the President’s policy plans for the second half of his tenure. True to reputation, President Sarkosy’s utterances have evoked another controversy. According to the President, “The burqa is not welcome on French territory. In our community, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen; cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.”
The President’s comments have been condemned by Islamic groups across the globe, reminiscent of the protests in 2004 against the French law prohibiting the display religious symbols in public places. 
Following President Sarkosy’s comments a Parliamentary review committee has been constituted, comprising of 32 lawmakers, to investigate whether or not the burqa poses threat to the secular nature of the French Constitution. The recommendations are due in six months.
The deeper roots of the burqa controversy lie in the relation between secular identity and religious identity in a democracy. Does an individual’s religious identity threaten the secular fabric of a democracy?
For the individual, strong identities- religious, ethnic or racial- are vitally important. Such identities help the individual to connect and relate to others and exist beyond national boundaries. These group identities are much more flexible and the degree of individual’s allegiance can vary. For example, someone can be a Catholic by birth and yet not essentially practice the faith or be an atheist and yet share a group identity. National identities on the other hand are more formal and absolute. We cannot be a ‘non-national’ or subscribe to some national laws while ignore the others. So group identities help the individual to connect the whole in ways and degrees that one desires.
For the Muslim women the prescribed dress code is a part of their religious identity. Again the degree of compliance varies with a choice to be made from among the veil, hijab or burqa.
The criticism of the Muslim women’s dress code is primarily based on two grounds: gender discrimination and social alienation. According to many critics, the full body covering prescribed for women discriminates against them as no such injunction is provided for the men. This point of criticism is faulty and can be refuted by a simple reading of the Quran.
“Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands…” (Qur’an 24:30-31)
The Quran has prescribed modesty in conduct and dress for both men and women. The Quran in fact makes it simpler for women by providing concrete instructions to be followed at the material plane, while for the men the fact that ‘Allah is well acquainted with all that they do’ necessitates guarding their abstract thought process as well. So while the women have to cover their bodies, the men have to regulate their thoughts; the former is less challenging than the latter.�
The argument of social alienation against the Islamic dress code for women is also widespread. As Zainab Alwani, Program Director of the Arabic Language Studies at Northern Virginia Community College, points out the Quranic guidelines regarding Muslim women’s dress reveal that women should be involved and engaged in building human society. Otherwise, if God intended for women to remain at home, why would He have established specific guidelines regarding how women should dress in public? The fact that the Quran addresses how women should present themselves in public and in mixed gatherings reinforces the fact that Islam gives women a role in contributing to their societies and being visible in the public sphere.
For many Muslim women the absence of the hijab or burqa makes them feel ‘naked’. Muslim women who cover derive dignity and self esteem from covering; they are pleased to be identified as Muslim women. The Hijab or burqa is a statement of their identity.  Will not the decision to ban the burqa constitute the deprival of one’s identity? The decision by a Muslim majority state to ban trousers and shirts for women would be labeled as fundamentalist while the banning of the burqa is being hailed as democratic. The task of the state, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries, is to facilitate and not dictate the individual’s quest for identity.  �
Nathan Sharansky is right when he states that identity without democracy can become fundamentalist and totalitarian; democracy without identity can become superficial and meaningless. Will France be able to comprehend the implications of Nathan Sharansky’s observation?