The House of Saud

[Pangloss]

(Please note that this is not intended as a judgement or a proponement of Saudi society. I'm not saying it's better than other societies, or that it's "good" (in fact there's a great deal to dislike about it). I just happen to find their social structure fascinating.)

 

A Saudi minister was asked by a western reporter once when he thought Saudi Arabia would become a democracy. The minister answered "we feel that we are one today".

 

Incredible as it may seem, these people may actually have a valid reason to think they have a democracy. How is this possible? Because they have the two things that often constitute the definition of democracy in many people's eyes: Self-governance and freedom.

 

If the citizens in a small Saudi town decide that all citizens must wear tall, pointed hats on Thursdays, then you'd better believe that the citizens of that town must wear tall, pointed hats on Thursdays. The king of Saudi Arabia doesn't want to deal with whether the little people in some backwater town have to wear hats -- for the most part he simply leaves them alone. They can do whatever they like. That is self-governance, and it is freedom. (You didn't think that Mel Gibson in Braveheart was screaming about representative, constitutional governance, did you?) Remember, this has been a tribal society for thousands of years.

 

We generally see their lack of a constitution as a BAD thing, but in fact a constitution is great if you want to defend the little guy, but in a society where the little guy has no recognized importance, a constitution actually gets in your way. So while it certainly wasn't what that reporter had in mind, but it's not hard to see how this might be viewed as "democracy".

 

So that begs another question: Who are we to tell them they're not a democratic society? Put another way, are we going to tell them they're not a democracy just because they don't allow their women to drive? This is the kind of thing they don't understand about us -- it seems to them that it's not "democracy" we want them to have, but rather our way of life.

 

I think we have to recognize that this is what makes their society "work". I'm not defending it, but it seems clear that if it didn't exist, the alternative could have been (and could still be) much worse.

 

One of the things that's so fascinating about Saudi Arabian society is the way in which fundamentalism is actually used by the monarchy in order to stay in power. Time and again over the decades, the monarchy has turned to the organization of clerics (the "ulama") to issue fatwahs against any perceived threat. But note what a fatwah actually does: It gives the government moral authority. In a sense it's like a Federal agent pointing at the Constitution. It makes their monarchy more than just an authoritarian force -- it means they have the support of the people.

 

of course that approach has created a religious structure that has to be appeased. Their history for the last 50 years has been checkered with compromises between these two forces. But it has prevented Saudi Arabia from becoming an authoritarian/dictatorial state. It may be a monarchy, but it is not despotic. Almost exactly the opposite, in fact, because if they tried to become one, they would immediately be overthrown.

 

Much of the above analysis is a reflection of my viewing of a recent PBS Frontline episode on Saudi Arabia called "House of Saud" -- an astonishingly interesting, 2-hour-long episode. It's not available for online viewing, sadly (many Frontline eps are), but the home page with more details to supplement the show can be found here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/

 

I do think that we go a little overboard sometimes in portraying basic human civil liberties as a universal concept. There's nothing universal about it. We need to pay attention to why societies other than our own are set up the way they are, rather than just dismissing them because they are different. But ultimately the question is still whether the world will stand up and fight for those rights.

[Cadmus]

(Please note that this is not intended as a judgement or a proponement of Saudi society. I'm not saying it's better than other societies, or that it's "good" (in fact there's a great deal to dislike about it). I just happen to find their social structure fascinating.)

I also find their society fascinating. I have been to Saudi Arabia many times. I also read the book by the same name as your posting. I would like to respond to your post, but I have this feeling that your post is actually based on a Monty Python sketch that I once saw, so I am hesitant to take it seriously.

[Pangloss]

No I was being serious, but I'll take that as a compliment since I'm a huge Python fan. Not sure what skit you're thinking of, but I'm amused by the reaction already. (grin)

 

More or less out of idle curiosity, when you were in the kingdom, how did you find the people there? Warm and receptive, cold and formal, or something else?

 

Thanks.

[Cadmus]

More or less out of idle curiosity, when you were in the kingdom, how did you find the people there? Warm and receptive, cold and formal, or something else?

Women of course ignored me completely, and I had no interaction with women. Men that I did not know ignored me completely or were for the most part quite friendly. A few were not friendly. Of the men that I did know several were fairly friendly. Some Saudis looked upon me with an air of superiority, as I believe is quite common to do for almost all visitors to Saudi Arabia.

 

Incredible as it may seem, these people may actually have a valid reason to think they have a democracy. How is this possible? Because they have the two things that often constitute the definition of democracy in many people's eyes: Self-governance and freedom.

I grant that you have the right to define freedom in any way that you wish, such that you may believe this. According to the way that I understand the word freedom, it would be difficult to be further from the truth.

 

If the citizens in a small Saudi town decide that all citizens must wear tall, pointed hats on Thursdays, then you'd better believe that the citizens of that town must wear tall, pointed hats on Thursdays. The king of Saudi Arabia doesn't want to deal with whether the little people in some backwater town have to wear hats -- for the most part he simply leaves them alone. They can do whatever they like.

Rather than quibble over whether or not this is true, I will ask you if you have ever heard of the culture police. They are the fearful ones in daily life.

 

Put another way, are we going to tell them they're not a democracy just because they don't allow their women to drive?

Or talk to men, or leave the house unescorted, or have any control over their own lives, or ...

[reverse]

I kind of agree with you.

I would like the world to remain full of lots of different cultures,

as long as no one is really suffering in any one of them.

My worry is that TV and Pop culture will make bland all these gems of civilisation.

[TimeTraveler]

Personally I don't care what type of system of governance a country chooses, as long as it gives its people basic freedoms and causes no intentional harm to its people.

 

I have to agree with Cadmus, I do not see basic freedoms and humanitarian rights from Saudi Arabia. I don't know if pushing democracy is the best thing, but humanitarian rights should be sought after by the US and/or UN for Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

Heres another useful link:

Saudi violations of womens human rights: Amnesty international report

[Sayonara]

Saudi war on women

That's a bit of an odd name to give the link when the part you quoted from it is about happenings in Nigeria

Or rather, the choice of quote is odd. Bearing in mind the thread is about society in Saudi Arabia, not Islam.

[Pangloss]

I grant that you have the right to define freedom in any way that you wish, such that you may believe this. According to the way that I understand the word freedom, it would be difficult to be further from the truth.

 

I feel the same way.

 

I don't think these people are free. I'm just pointing out that there is a reason why they might think so.

 

I also wonder if perhaps it's a bit of hubris on our part to tell others what freedom is when we aren't free in many ways ourselves. For example:

 

Personally I don't care what type of system of governance a country chooses, as long as it gives its people basic freedoms and causes no intentional harm to its people.

 

Indeed, I would agree with this sentiment very much. But let's not have any illusions about whether or not other countries are actually making a choice here, hmm? We're telling them what to do, just the same as if we were two-bit dictators.

[Cadmus]

I don't think these people are free. I'm just pointing out that there is a reason why they might think so.

There are reasons why every society in the world might think that it is free. I have asked Saudis directly about the way that men treat women. I have been told, point blank, that they treat women the way they do because of the tremendous respect that they have for women. In other words, everyone can justify their behavior in lofty terms, and think highly of habits to which they have become accustomed. This of course is true for all nations, including ours.

 

I also wonder if perhaps it's a bit of hubris on our part to tell others what freedom is when we aren't free in many ways ourselves.

This seems to be quite a different topic entirely. I think that here you have quire a valid point. Just how free are people in the United States? For example, another thread here asks if people think that marijuana should be legailized. Many people on this forum seem to think that the government should deny people the freedom to use marijuana. No matter what their motives, it is clear that these people, and indeed most of us, feel that certain freedoms should be denied to certain members of our society, even if the action involved are personal and involve no one else. We all seem to want freedom, but are willing to deny others certain of their freedoms. Just how free have we become in this country?

[TimeTraveler]

That's a bit of an odd name to give the link when the part you quoted from it is about happenings in Nigeria

Or rather' date=' the choice of quote is odd. Bearing in mind the thread is about society in Saudi Arabia, not Islam.[/quote']

 

Nevermind, My bad. I fixed it. Note to self: Don't make posts so late at night.

[Macroscopic]

I see no reason why saudi Arabia should be called a democracy; it is not. If they believe they are then they either don't know what a democracy is, or they are just wrong. A democracy does not let men control the lives of women. That is not freedom or democracy.

Incredible as it may seem, these people may actually have a valid reason to think they have a democracy. How is this possible?

Ignorance? Wishful thinking? The idea that if we think they are democratic we won't attack them?

[TimeTraveler]

Just like with any country there is good and bad. Unfortanantly I do not know much about the good aspects of culture in Saudi Arabia, however I do some of the bad. In post #6 I wanted to find a specific link about some honor killings in Saudi, but I couldn't find it and posted a different link I found, good thing Sayo caught that it was pretty much irrelevent and the part I quoted was about Nigeria not Saudi

 

In Saudi I read that if a women is raped it is her families duty to kill her to preserve her honor. Of course not everyone in Saud follows these 'traditions'.

 

I know that the neo con agenda wants every country to be democratic, I think that is plain silly. Countries need to be free to form their own governments, but there needs to be strict international law the prevents tyranny, genocide, torture, and all other aspects of inhumane treatment. I know there are some such laws in place, but it seems those laws are often broken and nothing is done about it.

 

But back to Saudi, I don't think Saudi is close to democratic. But I don't think the Bush administration will do anything forcefully to Saudi, even though they do support many terrorists, Saudi ties to America and oil are far to great. Doesn't Saudi Arabia own like 7% of the US economy?

[Cadmus]

there needs to be strict international law the prevents tyranny, genocide, torture, and all other aspects of inhumane treatment.

This is quite impossible. Furthermore, it is not desireable. Would you make a list of all of the countries that are currently in violation of this goal? I don't have the time to make such a huge list. Once you have your list, would you like to see Bush make good on his ridiculous speech to take democracy to these countries by force? Even if all compliant countries assisted, if there are any, how possible is it to enforce your rules? I don't mind a strict set of ideals, but enforcement is out of the question.

[TimeTraveler]

This is quite impossible. Furthermore, it is not desireable. Would you make a list of all of the countries that are currently in violation of this goal? I don't have the time to make such a huge list. Once you have your list, would you like to see Bush make good on his ridiculous speech to take democracy to these countries by force? Even if all compliant countries assisted, if there are any, how possible is it to enforce your rules? I don't mind a strict set of ideals, but enforcement is out of the question.

 

I disagree.

 

It is only impossible because we consider it impossible.

 

Bush is an idiot. Actually, he is more of a puppet. His only quality in politics is public speaking, other than that he is ignorant to the world. His so called administration has goals for humanity to take course for democracy. They believe that if every country is democratic then there will be no fighting. However that is unlikely. For one, economies need war. For two by forcing democracy you breed resistance (As seen in Iraq).

 

The solution would be international law, peace, order and justice. However, I will concede that I do not know a good way to enforce international law. But I do know that forcefully will not work. The leaders of this planet are leaders for a reason. To figure out how we can all live peacefully together and the people of this world have the basic human rights. The leaders of this world fail in this aspect. It is up to the people to recognize this. When they do they can make a difference. What we need is a worldwide revolution because the future of humanity looks very bleak. War, famine, poverty, our environment, natural resource depletion, global warming, ect. These are things humanity as a whole needs to step up and conquer. It can be done, it's just a matter if it will be done.

 

Sorry for straying off topic, Cadmus maybe we can start a new thread to discuss this so we don't Hijack this thread.

[Cadmus]

I disagree.

I think that you hold noble ideals.

 

economies need war. For two by forcing democracy you breed resistance

For the very reasons that you recognize here, and for many others, I think that these ideals will not be achievable in our lifetime or that of our children, if ever. Are we moving toward these ideals in any fashion now? I don't think so. Bush is not a leader that will move us in the direction of your ideals, I think.

[Pangloss]

Macroscopic:

 

I see no reason why saudi Arabia should be called a democracy; it is not. If they believe they are then they either don't know what a democracy is, or they are just wrong. A democracy does not let men control the lives of women. That is not freedom or democracy.

 

Maybe. Certainly I share the sentiment. But consider: Even in the United States, freedom and democracy did not happen overnight. And just last week (?) Saudi Arabia had local elections for the first time.

 

Isn't it possible that (a) the situation in Saudi Arabia could be a lot worse, (b) the situation in Saudi Arabia could be improving, and © gradual change is better than sudden *unwelcome/enforced* change?

 

 

TimeTraveler:

 

Good points, although I think it's a mistake to single out the neo-cons. There are forces within the traditional left wing of American politics which share those sentiments. They just happen to not be prevalent at the moment. And also, if the above comments I made to Macroscopic are true, wouldn't that be the result of, as you say, Bush (and by fiat, the neo-cons) not "doing anything forceful" about Saudi Arabia?

[Cadmus]

And just last week (?) Saudi Arabia had local elections for the first time.

One election does not a democracy make.

 

Isn't it possible that (a) the situation in Saudi Arabia could be a lot worse, (b) the situation in Saudi Arabia could be improving, and © gradual change is better than sudden *unwelcome/enforced* change?

This is true for every country on earth.

[Pangloss]

Then I would say that you and I are more or less in agreement, really.

 

I thought it was interesting what you were saying above, actually let me just quote it briefly for clarity's sake:

 

There are reasons why every society in the world might think that it is free. I have asked Saudis directly about the way that men treat women. I have been told, point blank, that they treat women the way they do because of the tremendous respect that they have for women. In other words, everyone can justify their behavior in lofty terms, and think highly of habits to which they have become accustomed. This of course is true for all nations, including ours.

 

It's an interesting point, and reminds me a lot of growing up in suburban Atlanta, with the majority of my extracurricular exposure (e.g. Boy Scouts) being amongst rural, white Georgians. The mentality involving behavior towards women is, I think, very similar.

 

I think it's also likely that much of the social structure of modern Saudi society (not that I'm an expert, mind) is actually not based so much on Arab history, or Muslim history, but rather a hodge-podge of the two, along with perhaps a dash of ancient Rome (e.g. the ancient Roman custom known as the "patron-client system", as popularized in modern times by the mafia, although I don't mean to suggest a correlation or negative aspect by mentioning the mafia).

 

My point here being that while they may view their society as preserving ancient culture, it isn't necessarily true. That was often the case in rural Georgia as well. I suspect we are all products of our times, whether we choose to admit it or not.

[Macroscopic]

Isn't it possible that (a) the situation in Saudi Arabia could be a lot worse, (b) the situation in Saudi Arabia could be improving, and © gradual change is better than sudden *unwelcome/enforced* change?

 

(a) Any situation could be worse, even Saudi Arabia.

(b) It's not improving fast enough, it needs to be sped up.

© While they are gradually improving to what we hope might be a democracy, the citizens suffer.

[TimeTraveler]

I think that you hold noble ideals.

 

For the very reasons that you recognize here' date=' and for many others, I think that these ideals will not be achievable in our lifetime or that of our children, if ever. Are we moving toward these ideals in any fashion now? I don't think so. Bush is not a leader that will move us in the direction of your ideals, I think.[/quote']

 

I think these ideals can be achieved, but it seems that there is a lack of proper planning to acheive these ideals. However I do see the words being spoken by prominent members in the UN and other leaders but I have not seen the proper actions to carry out these ideals. The UN needs reformed, because all I see is alot of disagreements with no prominent agreed upon mission for humanity. I think if the international community can come together and write an outline of an ideal human evolutionary plan into the future, taking into account every important issue that faces humanity as a whole, and then write a plan to achieve those goals in a way that gives every nation a mission to strive for as "a team", it could possibly unite humanity in a way of improving our world and humanity.

 

That was long winded and hurried; I hope that makes sense.

 

But I would agree, Bush is not the man for the job. Like he said "I am a war president, I make decisions with war on my mind." Sometimes war might be necessary, like the fight against hitler and his army was necessary. But preemptive war should be avoided at all costs unless absolute certainty dictates it necessary. The case for Iraq was based on mostly neocon speculation, spins on evidence, and in some cases intentionally falsified claims.

 

TimeTraveler:

 

Good points' date=' although I think it's a mistake to single out the neo-cons. There are forces within the traditional left wing of American politics which share those sentiments. They just happen to not be prevalent at the moment. And also, if the above comments I made to Macroscopic are true, wouldn't that be the result of, as you say, Bush (and by fiat, the neo-cons) not "doing anything forceful" about Saudi Arabia? [/quote']

 

I agree completely. I don't mean to single out the Neo-cons, but their actions over the past twenty years have discredited the honor and humanity of my country, and has been allowed to go on for far too long. The thing is the average American is completely unaware of what they have done and are doing. If they came out and plead an honest case for their agenda and got the support of America then that would be fine (I doubt they would get any support though, which it is obvious they understand that too and thats why they are so stealthy and deceiptful about their agenda) I believe the lack of action in Saudi basically comes from a lack of benefits to that agenda.

 

 

 

[Pangloss]

Interesting post.

[TimeTraveler]

Sorry to stray off topic Pangloss. Went from talking about Saudi to Ideologies. I do that alot, it's not intentional though.