Just in case any still believe the Bush LIE that the US favors Arab democracy:
Reform With an Islamic Slant
Saudi Pro-Democracy Movement Poses Dilemma for U.S.
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, March 9, 2003; Page A23
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- When Saudi democracy activists circulated a petition recently calling for an elected national assembly, an independent judiciary and
a crackdown on corruption, they received support from some unexpected quarters.
Most of the 104 intellectuals, former government officials and university professors who signed the document -- a rare challenge to the royal family -- were
Islamic traditionalists and conservatives. Although some self-described liberals also put their names on the petition, it was largely shunned by the pro-Western
Saudis cultivated by the U.S. Embassy here as the most progressive elements in the kingdom.
The fledgling reform movement in Saudi Arabia, a pivotal U.S. ally that boasts a quarter of the world's proven oil reserves, illustrates a dilemma confronting
the Bush administration as it advocates the spread of American-style political freedoms in the Middle East. Political analysts here say that free elections in
Saudi Arabia would likely be won by Islamic fundamentalists hostile to the United States, creating the risk of an upsurge of anti-Americanism along the lines
of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.
"I don't think the U.S. will like the outcome of democracy here," said Abdul Hai, one of several political science professors at Riyadh's King Saud University
who signed the reform petition. "But let the Islamists and the traditionalists come to power. If they fail, others will take their place."
Like many of his fellow signatories, Hai is deeply skeptical of the Bush administration's calls for democratic change in Arab countries and believes that
"nothing good" will come of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. "U.S. policy has always worked against democracy in this part of the world," he said. "It has always
supported the ruling elites."
Such views put Hai at odds with his boss, Mishary Nuaim, who chairs the political science department and is closely aligned with Saudi Arabia's westernized
ruling elite. Nuaim said he refused to sign the petition because he fears that "this kind of democratic change could have adverse effects. If you had a free
election in Saudi Arabia, you would likely end up with a parliament dominated by conservatives, tribal leaders and minor religious figures, with very limited
secular representation."
The call for a freely elected assembly goes well beyond a vaguely worded proposal for "internal reform and enhanced political participation" throughout the
Arab world advanced a year ago by the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Abdullah. While Abdullah has expressed sympathy for calls for
liberalization in the kingdom, and even met with some signatories of the reform petition, he has stopped short of endorsing anything that would dilute the
power of the ruling House of Saud.
The excitement surrounding the National Reform Document, which began circulating here in January, first by hand and later on the Internet, is reminiscent of
the political ferment that swept through Saudi Arabia between 1990 and 1992, around the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. At that time, liberals and
conservatives circulated separate petitions criticizing some government policies and calling for greater political freedoms.
The royal family responded to the first set of petitions with a mixture of repression and minor concessions. The government arrested dozens of dissidents,
particularly members of Islamic groups dismayed by the decision to allow thousands of U.S. troops to remain in the kingdom. It also established a
consultative council, known as the Shura, made up of representatives selected by the king.
This time around, authorities have adopted a softer, subtler approach. When Abdullah met with several dozen signatories of the petition at the end of January,
he struck a conciliatory tone, according to people who were present. He urged them to be patient, arguing that the government should be given time to
introduce its own political reforms.
Subsequently, however, authorities blocked an Internet site, www.tuwaa.com, where Saudis were able to express their support for the goals of the reform
document. According to Hai, several thousand people signed the petition via the Internet before the site was taken down last month. While
government-controlled newspapers have alluded to the petition, they have yet to publish its contents.
In contrast to the petitions that circulated a decade ago, which expressed the ideas of different political and religious factions, the new reform document was
designed to attract both liberals and fundamentalists. The principal demand, couched in a tone of respect toward the royal family, is for a series of political
reforms, beginning with a directly elected Shura.
While most of the demands would appear unobjectionable in the West, some westernized Saudis fear they could strengthen the position of Islamic
fundamentalists. In the Saudi context, a Saudi human rights activist argued, calling for the independence of the judiciary is tantamount to giving more power to
the religious police and clerics who are responsible for enforcing Islamic law.
Although the Bush administration has called for democratic reforms throughout the Middle East, there has been a gap between rhetoric and practice. Last
week, at the same time that Bush was outlining his vision of a liberated Iraq inspiring forces of democracy throughout the region, U.S. diplomats here were
assuring Saudi intellectuals that they do not see a postwar Iraq as a model for Saudi Arabia.
Despite its fabulous oil wealth, Saudi Arabia is confronting increasingly severe economic problems, which have undermined the social contract between Saudis
and the House of Saud that has monopolized political power in the country for seven decades. The problems include rising unemployment, estimated at 10 to
15 percent of the Saudi workforce, and an ever-increasing government debt, now running at 100 percent of gross domestic product, compared to around 35
percent in most Western countries.
In addition to its economic woes, the royal family is also on the defensive because of complaints about corruption and close ties with the United States.
Random interviews suggest an overwhelming majority of Saudis oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq. The government is engaged in an endless political juggling
act, balancing pressures from Washington for a crackdown on Islamic charities suspected of funding terrorist groups against the demands of conservatives for
stricter religious discipline.
"They are trying to please everybody at once," said a prominent Saudi intellectual, citing a recent campaign by the religious police to enforce Islamic dress
codes in public places. "The government doesn't want the [religious police] to grumble too much about Saudi support for U.S. policies in Iraq, so they keep
them happy by letting them chase women instead."
The squabbles are reflected in the political science department of King Saud University, where, according to Nuaim, a "cold war" is underway between
pro-Western and pro-Islamic academics. Many of the academics who signed the National Reform Document are hostile to the United States, he said, and
others are "naive."
But Hai, who was educated at the University of Denver and describes himself as liberal, said he signed the reform document because he believes greater
political accountability is the only way to tackle the problems facing Saudi Arabia, including massive corruption and overspending on the military, much of it
for equipment from the United States.
"You have to start somewhere," said Hai, noting that Saudi academics have been deprived of their traditional right to elect their department heads. "Let's start
with university professors, and move on from there."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company |
