| |
Saudi rulers draw the wrong
line
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - Following the bomb attack on a
residential complex in Riyadh on November 8, Saudi
Arabia's King Fahd pledged "to strike with an iron fist
whoever tries to violate the security of the country or
its stability". The announcement, far from reassuring
Saudi citizens, has evoked concern; for in the name of
crushing terrorism, the Saudi regime is said to be
cracking down on activists demanding political reform as
well.
The attack has underscored far more than
the triple suicide attack on a housing complex in Riyadh
in May, proving that al-Qaeda's jihad is targeting not
just the West and Israel, but also the Saudi monarchy.
Following the May attack, the Saudi regime took steps to
break al-Qaeda in the country. Hundreds of Islamist
militants were rounded up and taken into custody. Scores
of imams (preachers) with "extremist links" and
al-Qaeda "sympathizers" were arrested. Several of the
"terrorists" who were rounded up were in fact political
activists - secular and Islamist - who are demanding
political reform.
It is likely that the measures
the regime will now employ to crush the terrorists will
be far more ruthless than those used over the past six
months. There are fears that the "iron fist" that King
Fahd has vowed to use could end up crushing the nascent
movement for political reform in Saudi Arabia.
Since 1991, Saudi reformists have been calling
on the ruling family to deal with the problem posed by
Islamic radicals by curbing radical imams,
modernizing education and so on. They have stressed that
the monarchy must cede some powers to elected
institutions, arguing that political reform and the
strengthening of civil society is critical to curb the
assertion of Islamic radicals. The Saudi royals have
however paid little attention to the reformists,
preferring instead to unleash repression to silence them
or to exile critics of the regime.
Post
September 11, under domestic and international pressure
to usher in reform, the House of Saud sent out signals
early this year that it was willing to consider some
political reform.
In an article "Violence and
the Illusion of Reform in Saudi Arabia" on the Middle
East Report Online, analyst Toby Jones points out that
the first sign of change was that talking about reform,
if nothing else, was slowly becoming a part of public
life. Unlike the past when any talk of reform or
criticism, however mild, of the regime would be
ruthlessly dealt with, editorials and opinion pieces in
Saudi newspapers began debating political reform. A
series of petitions calling for reform were submitted to
Crown Prince Abdallah in January, April and September.
The petitions demanded public election of the
consultative council (a supposedly autonomous body that
in reality reflects the royal will), social justice,
civil rights, an independent and reformed judiciary, and
the creation of human rights institutions. The September
petition was more impatient and confrontational than the
earlier ones.
The signatories of these petitions
have been described as non-Islamist liberals because of
their broad secular outlook. They seek to work with the
monarchy to bring about the change. Hajib al-Khunayzi,
one of the signatories of the January petition, told the
news agency Associated Press in February that change in
Saudi Arabia would come "from above or below". "It is
better that it happens from above," he added.
Unlike the liberals, who are looking to
state-led political reform and who see themselves and
the regime as allies against the radicals, groups like
the London-based Movement for Islamic Restoration in
Arabia (MIRA) have little faith that the royals will
lead reform of the political system. MIRA's strategy is
proactive. Its website states that "the people must not
wait for freedom to be granted as a favor from the House
of Saud, or come as a gift from the Americans who will
pressure the House of Saud into liberalizing, as some
dreaming liberals wish. They should not even wait for
the reform movement to achieve liberation for them."
MIRA is skeptical of the ruling family's
attempts at introducing reform. The consultative
council's announcement on October 13 that municipal
elections would be held within the next 12 months - a
historic step in Saudi history - was dismissed by MIRA's
director, Saad al-Faqih, as nothing much. He likened the
offer to "breaking the [Muslim Ramadan] fast with
onions".
Indeed, the Saudi rulers confirmed
MIRA's suspicions of the genuineness of their commitment
to reform within a day of the historic announcement. A
demonstration called by MIRA to protest the slow pace of
reform in the country was broken up by riot police who
fired live ammunition at the protestors and arrested
around 150 of them. The following week, MIRA called for
demonstrations in nine cities across Saudi Arabia,
declaring its right to continue protesting peacefully.
Brutal tactics were used by the state against MIRA
supporters to preempt the protests.
The huge
turnout at the protest marches MIRA called for in
October suggests that it does have popular appeal. Jones
argues that MIRA's anti-US, anti-regime posture,
together with its espousal of Islamic principles, has
struck a chord among the Saudi masses. At the same time,
it has eschewed violence, unlike Islamist extremist
groups like al-Qaeda.
It is said that rivalry
between the princes of the House of Saud is being
reflected in the positions they are taking on the reform
issue. It is said that while Crown Prince Abdallah has
come around to accepting that some reform is necessary,
he faces serious opposition on the matter from Prince
Nayif, a bitter rival.
Prince Nayif is the Saudi
Minister of the Interior, head of the intelligence
services and chief of police. He has used the "threat of
terrorism in Saudi Arabia" to rule out reform at
present, arguing that "the current circumstances are not
conducive to raising or speaking about such matters." He
has stressed that security is the most important issue
before Saudi Arabia today and that change must not be
achieved at the expense of stability.
Prince
Nayif has used the terrorist attacks of May and November
to give urgency and priority to the issue of security
rather than political reform. He has interpreted the
meaning of security to mean stability. In the process of
cracking down on terrorist cells, he has ordered the
arrest of scores of political activists who are
demanding political reform and challenging the grip of
the monarchy. He has unleashed the powers he has as
chief of intelligence and police to undermine the
reformist movement.
It is therefore likely that
the current "threat from terrorism" and the aggressive
security campaign that is under way in Saudi Arabia will
further slow down the already glacial pace at which the
royals were addressing the reform issue. This will only
strengthen the hand of extremists like al-Qaeda.
The credibility of the secular liberals -
already low because they are perceived to be taking the
American line - will be eroded further if the House of
Saud continues to drag its feet on reform. Going by the
tone of their petitions, the liberals' patience seems to
be running out. If they turn against the monarchy, the
House of Saud will be isolated.
By arresting and
unleashing repression on the Islamist reformists, the
Saudi rulers are marginalizing the moderates among the
Islamists. That would leave the opposition space wide
open for radical Islamists and extremist groups like
al-Qaeda to fill. Reluctance to initiate real reform
immediately could result in the House of Saud slipping
towards sinking sands.
(Copyright 2003 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
