The international community encourages countries to increase the number of women in the judiciary. This is partly based on the hypothesis that female judges make the bench representative of society. However, the question arises as to which women we are referring to. While the experiences of women are different from men because of their sex, experiences of lower-class women are also different from those from the middle and upper classes, as experiences of women belonging to a minority are different from those belonging to the majority. Using the intersectionality grid of “penalty and privilege” proposed by Patricia Hill Collins (2000), this article aims to look beyond the gender-binary in the study of judges in Muslim contexts by bringing in an intersectional approach, using Tunisia as a case study. Focusing on two female judges functioning under the Tunisian authoritarian regime, this study hopes to show how different women bring different experiences to the bench.

Since the 2011 revolution, Tunisia has been negotiating what it is to become, a processof rebirth in which women’s rights is key. The ongoing debates reflect a confrontation betweenthe feminist policies of Habib Bourguiba (the first president of the Tunisian republic) andalternative notions of women’s rights. In this article, I examine the debates that are currentlytaking place in Tunisia. I argue that the topic of women’s rights is crucial in the power strugglebetween the political elites within Tunisia. It is symbolic of the much wider battle over the future of the country. Moreover, the legislative outcomes of the debates are indicative for the postrevolutionary political dynamics, showing the strength of so-called secularists.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract