Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Although the Arab Spring did not hit Saudi Arabia as severely as it did other Middle Eastern countries, the state’s recent reforms prove the fear of uprisings is legitimate and significant restructuring must be pursued to avoid such upset.
Despite these reforms, Saudi Arabia has a long way to go.
Since assuming the role of ruler in Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah has made gradual, but significant reforms in women’s rights. Upon his succession to the throne in 2005, Abdullah has also made improvements in the education system, funding scholarship programs that send both Saudi men and women to Western universities.
On Sept. 25, King Abdullah announced that women would be granted the right to vote in Saudi Arabia — a positive move toward gender equality in the country, but one that has nevertheless caused many to question the king’s motives.
This most recent reform, which doesn’t take effect until 2015, grants women the right to vote in municipal elections and gives them the ability to run for, as well as serve on, the Shura Council — a pseudo-legislative body that holds little power when it comes to decision making.
It is of the utmost importance to remember that the electoral and political processes practiced in Saudi Arabia differ from those practiced in the United States, especially regarding situations such as this one.
In Saudi Arabia, elections are not portended by the glamorous, year-long campaigns we’ve become so accustomed to here in the states. Because there is little to no campaigning, many Saudi voters take shots in the dark when casting votes. They often lack any knowledge about candidates or their credentials.
This is not to say that Saudis don’t care about politics — rather, elections are meaningless in a land ruled by a king.
Ultimately, no matter what the council produces, the policies and actions of Saudi Arabia are left to the king, which begs the question once more: Are the intentions behind the women’s rights reform just?
While this move is the right step for Saudi Arabia, its timing and proximity to the recent events in the Middle East are questionable. Arguably, King Abdullah has made these concessions in light of the recent reforms sweeping the Middle East since December 2010.
King Abdullah realizes the fragility of the region and has given in due to the social and political chaos that would ensue if such a movement gains momentum. What Abdullah has failed to realize is that his country still denies women several other basic rights that grant independence, such as driving.
In July 2011, a woman whom authorities identified as Shema was arrested and found guilty for, of all things, driving. Less than two days after King Abdullah’s announcement that women would be seen as equal to men in the voter realm, Shema was sentenced to 10 lashes — a punishment older than Islam itself.
Is justice served? Or is it just window-dressing?
Although Abdullah is making gradual efforts to create a more equal society, his actions are accepted in vain when barbaric punishments are handed out for things not worthy of criminal distinction.
His decision to give women the right to vote may quiet Western critics, but it will definitely ignite the hearts and minds of ultra-conservative Muslims in Saudi Arabia — a place known for deeply-rooted moral and cultural codes.
The paradox is this: Abdullah is trying to prevent upheaval by ceding more rights to women, but an uprising may result for that very reason.
The country is at a crossroads. It can now choose to embrace liberalization and continue to endorse women’s rights. The price to pay will be its conservative Muslim heritage.
On the other hand, if the country stops at this concession and decides not to move forward with promoting gender equality, Saudi Arabia is left equidistant from liberalization and conservative Muslim culture.
Ryan Campbell is a fourth-year political science student. His political columns will appear every Thursday.
