Saudi Arabia: current challenges

Saudi Arabia is an important political, economic, and military ally of the US in the Middle East. Their vast oil reserves, their assistance in Global War on Terrorism, their relatively moderate political standing (compared to Iran), and their location as the spiritual home of Islam make Saudi Arabia extremely important for the long term stability of the region. The domestic situation in Saudi Arabia is dynamic and dangerous with many different groups attempting to influence and change the political situation. This paper’s thesis is that the current Saudi responses will actually destabilize the regime. This paper will look at the sources of conflict and the current Saudi responses to each. Following that discussion this paper will look at possible alternate responses.

Saudi Arabian politics is a complex system. “Complexity deals with systems composed of many interacting agents.” (Axelrod, 2000, xv) Agents are the various actors pursuing various strategies within a system (Axelrod, 2000, 4). As a framework to begin the analysis of the agents within Saudi Arabia, Misagh Parsa, in his book, States Ideologies, and Social Revolutions, offers a good categorization of the various internal groups that can exert revolutionary pressure on the existing regime: capitalists, students, clergy, and workers (Parsa, 2000, 93). For Saudi Arabia those grouping, while illustrative do not capture the dynamics of the situation. For example, within the clergy there are member who support the ruling class (the capitalists), who desire liberal reforms (the students), and who desire a return to a more ‘pure’ form of Islam (the clergy). This paper will re-label Parsa’s groups according to the aims of the group as opposed to the demographics of the group: those who prefer the status-quo, reformers, Islamists, and workers.

Those elements of Saudi Arabian society that prefer the status quo include the royal family and clergy that support the royal family. The current regime in Saudi Arabia is a monarchy under the Al-Saud royal family. The Qur’an is the constitution of Saudi Arabia and thus the country is governed under Shari’ah law. (Zuhur, 2005, 8) Saudi Arabia is rated as the seventh most authoritarian regime of 167 countries by the Economist Democracy Index. The capitalist group wants to maintain their control over the political and economic future of the country at all costs.

The next grouping is of those who prefer liberal reforms. This includes portions of the youth, liberal clergy, and the West. Although the West is not an internal actor, the pressures (intended and unintended) exerted by the West upon Saudi Arabian society are massive. This pressure causes feedback from other groups within Saudi Arabian society. Huntington captures this feedback as the “Clash of Civilizations” between the Western and Islamic civilizations. (Huntington, 1996, 110). He sees this clash as inevitable since both religions are monotheistic, universalistic, missionary focused, and see the world in dualistic ’us vs. them’ terms (Huntington, 1996, 210). The West wants Saudi Arabia to modernize and become more Western.

Similar to the Western desires, the internal elements want a consultative assembly, municipal councils, independent judiciary, equality of citizenry, freedom of media, encouraging women’s participation in society, and reform of the educational system (Zuhur, 2005, 26). These elements have repeatedly petitioned the royal family for reforms through the Letter of Demands in 1991 (Zuhur, 2005, 26) and the Strategic Vision for the Present and Future in 2003 (Zuhur, 2005, 32).

The Saudi responses to these demands have been slow. They have enacted several reforms such as the Basic Law of Government in 1992 and the creation of the majlis alshura in 1993. However, these actions are reforms in name only. The royal family still rules absolutely. If the royal family continues these pseudo-reforms Saudi Arabia will not transition into a modern Western democracy but instead into a semi-authoritarian state which is a “regime determined to maintain the appearance of democracy without exposing themselves to the political risks that free competition entails.” (Ottaway, 2003, 3).

The next grouping is those who prefer a return to a more ‘pure’ form of Islam (Islamists). This includes al-Qaeda on the Peninsula (AQP), the ‘ulama (religious leadership), and portions of the youth. Wahhabism is an integral part of Saudi Arabian Islam. It basic tenant is a desire to “purify [his] belief from degrading innovations” (Zuhur, 2005, 15) The new salafi movement adds to this purification, a concept of takfir (labeling a Muslim as being insufficiently devout). Despite the governance of the country being exclusively in accordance with the Qur’an, these groups perceive the royal family as corrupt and peddling “American Islam” (Zuhur, 2005, 8). They desire stricter observance of Shari’ah, and end to corruption, and a cessation of relations with the West and non-Muslim entities. The Islamists, like the reformers, have petitioned the government with the Memorandum of Advice in 1992 (Zuhur, 2005, 26). The Saudi government’s response to the Islamists is to dismiss those members of the ‘ulama, attack, arrest, and freeze assets of those associated with the Islamists.

The final grouping is the workers. The Shia living in the Eastern Province make up 40% of its population (Zuhur, 2005, 15). In addition, non-Saudi’s make up a large percentage of the population of the state. Both these groups do “labor that Saudi’s disdain” (Zuhur, 2005, 9) but are subject to intense discrimination and are not afforded the same rights as Saudis. These groups desire tolerance, end to discrimination, human rights, freedom, and equality of the citizenry (Zuhur, 2005, 32). The Saudi government has not responded to these demands and through a policy of ‘Saudization’ of the workforce (Zuhur, 2005, 10) has increased tensions between the Saudi and non-Saudis.

The above sections discuss the sources of conflict and the Saudi responses. The current Saudi responses will actually destabilize the regime. By enacting pseudo-democratic reforms to appease the reformers while maintaining the royal grip on power, the government is actually feeding the Islamist’s labeling of takfir. By attacking the Islamists, the government is feeding the reformers grievances related to human rights and lack of freedoms.

The basic problem is that Saudi Arabia is a non-differentiated society as defined by Binder. (Binder, 1971, 21). Any changes made to a sub-system within Saudi Arabian society will destabilize the other sub-systems due to non-differentiation. For example, giving women voting rights (a political change) will destabilize the social structure due to the Islamic interpretation of the place of women in society. Therefore, Saudi Arabia is left with an all or nothing proposition: They must either completely modernize with democratic freedoms (end to Shari’ah) and elected officials (end to the royal family) or maintain the current non-differentiated society by ruling with an iron fist (in accordance with Shari’ah) and crushing all dissent. The first option is clearly not feasible; any middle alternative brings the instability of semi-authoritarian regimes as discussed by Ottaway; leaving the final, if distasteful, option of the continuance of authoritarian rule by the al-Saud family. Bar-Yam supports this proposal with an analysis of the “trend of central control in the Islamic world” (Bar-yam, 2004, 250). Islam is total solution: government, law, and religion all in one. In an Islamic society any trend to modernization will be in direct opposition to Islam itself.

In conclusion, the Saudi Arabian government response to the current conflict within the country will actually destabilize the regime and the entire region. Saudi Arabia should maintain its authoritarian rule and crush all dissent.

Political correctness is losing the War on Terror

The true weakness in our application of the informational aspect of national power is our societal inability to voice contrasting opinions about the War on Terror due to a climate of political correctness. The current conventional wisdom reference the relationship of Islam to Al-Qaeda and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center is that Islam is a religion of peace and that Al-Qaeda is an ‘extremist’ group hijacking an otherwise peaceful religion. This is the politically correct talking point. If a public figure were to propose a contrary view, that Islam is not a peaceful religion, he would be vilified for being a bigot. By not allowing our scholars and public officials have an honest and candid conversation about the true nature of the ongoing conflict we are handicapping our ability as a nation to understand, fight, and win the conflict.

Despite the massive scope of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a great deal of evidence that the War on Terror as waged by the ‘extremists’ is predominantly an informational war. Due to our political correctness we are losing that war without even attempting to fight. A great example of this informational war is the reaction from the Islamic world to the 2005 Danish political cartoons. The unified voice coming out of the Islamic world was that our free speech should be curbed in reference to Islam and Muslims. Essentially that one of our core Western values should be subordinated to the demands of Islamic law. The only limitation to free speech that our courts recognize is speech that violations the harm principal proposed by John Stuart Mill. He stated that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” The demand from the Muslim community to subordinate one of our most cherished rights is one example of the ongoing war of information that our political correctness will not let us acknowledge or fight.

Another example of the ongoing informational war is the purchasing of influential media and educational institutions by members of the Saudi royal family. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has given over $20 million to Harvard and Georgetown University for their Islamic studies institutes. The two institutions do not hide the donation as shown with his name prominently displayed across their websites:

Islamic Studies Program at Harvard

Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown

The stated purpose for Harvard is to “bridge gaps in understanding between East and West and ensure that Harvard's capacity in Islamic Studies matches more fully the depth of Islam's rich historical and geographically diverse cultures.” For Georgetown, the purpose is to build “bridges of understanding between the Muslim world and the West, addressing stereotypes of Islam and Muslims and issues and questions such as the clash of civilizations, and the compatibility of Islam and modern life - from democratization and pluralism to the status of women, minorities and human rights - and American foreign policy in the Muslim world.” Both remarkably similar and both very idealistic and in-line with the politically correct notion that Islam is a religion of peace.

However, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s purchased a large share of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The following link shows the magnitude of his purchase and the influence it gives him with Rupert Murdoch.

NY Times article disclosing Talal's stake in News Corp.

This purchase in itself is not a problem; just a smart businessman making a smart investment. However, his use of the influence gained from his purchase may shed light on his intentions with the Harvard and Georgetown donations. During the 2005 French riots (‘civil unrest’ for the politically correct), Prince Alwaleed bin Talal used his influence to change the title of Fox News’ coverage of the event from “Muslim riots” to “civil riots”. Below is a transcript of the conversation between Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Rupert Murdoch purportedly in his own words:

"I picked up the phone and called Murdoch.. . . . (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty." "Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots."

Middle East Online article on Talal's influence on Fox News

Based on his actions during the 2005 French riots, it is likely that he is using the influence purchased by his large donation to Harvard and Georgetown to shape academic research and scholarly opinions on Islam and the Middle East to his liking. He is successfully waging an informational war; a war that due to our political correctness we cannot or will not even recognize.

The bottom line with respect to our foreign policy and national strategy is that political correctness restricts our ability to have an honest and candid conversation about the true nature of the ongoing conflict. We have ceded the informational war to our enemies without even a fight.