| Much
international attention is certain to be focused
on the coming municipal council elections in
Saudi Arabia. For the first time in the
Kingdom's history, citizens will vote for
representatives in 178 municipal councils across
all cities and villages in the 13 provinces. The
Riyadh province will hold elections first on
Feb. 10. The four southern provinces and the
Eastern Province will hold them March 3. The
rest of the country will complete elections
after Hajj on April 21. |
Among foreigners,
many American political analysts will be eager to comment
and pass judgment on what transpires. These analysts will
be especially keen to assess whether the end results
adhered to their preconceived views of what a successful
electoral process and actual elections entail.
Media pundits
will be focusing not only on the process of voter and
candidate identification and registration, but also on
campaigning, balloting and the extent to which civil
society elements, such as the leaders of professional
associations, chambers of commerce, academe and the media,
will have a role to play.
These and other
analysts also will examine the means by which the winners
are determined, the nature and effectiveness of dispute
resolution mechanisms in the event that candidates and
voters have complaints and whether the overall experience
is deemed legitimate.
 Witnessing
at close hand the enhancement of popular participation in
any country's national development process is hardly an
everyday occurrence. For context, this writer has been an
official observer for all three of neighboring Yemen's
presidential and parliamentary elections in 1993, 1997 and
2003. Being able to mix among national political leaders
and ordinary folk alike when the citizens of a unified
Yemen voted to elect their country's representatives for
the first, second and third times has been an exceptional
experience that provides a frame of reference for this
author's ability to critically analyze the upcoming Saudi
elections.
Electoral process
specialists from afar not only examine closely how a
country determines its leaders and representatives via the
ballot box. When requested, they also serve as consultants
for voters, candidates and election management bodies. On
one hand, they are often able to recommend ways to
strengthen the overall electoral environment; on the
other, from the perspective of having viewed the elections
firsthand, they are able to offer an assessment of
whether, in their view, the elections were "free and
fair." When various minor, inadvertent and easily
remedial defects are acknowledged to have occurred,
observers are often also able to indicate the degree to
which they believe the electoral process and its results
were "open and transparent."
CONSENT OF THE
GOVERNED
In most regions
of the world, there are countries whose governments and
electoral processes are inspired by various democratic
ideals and principles. Likewise, among their respective
citizenries are those whose needs, concerns and interests
are "indirectly represented" by individuals they
elected to governmental executive, legislative and/or
consultative branches.
| With
this as but one among other criteria for
analysis, the differences between Saudi Arabia's
municipal and other forms of government and
those of many countries elsewhere are fewer and
of less consequence than many claim. Where
numerous differences exist - and they do - it is
not in each and every case either logical or
factual to infer that one or the other system is
"better" or "worse" because
of the differences. What not so much
distinguishes but rather narrows the difference
between the United States and Saudi Arabia in
this context is that both acknowledge that a
primary requirement for obtaining and sustaining
legitimacy is that those who would govern obtain
the consent of the governed.
For
starters, applying Thomas Jefferson's definition
of democracy as "the consent of the
governed," Saudi Arabia's system of
governance, at virtually every level, is hardly
bereft of popular consent. To the contrary,
honoring and practicing the politics of consent
has been a requirement that Saudi Arabians have
demanded of all the country's leaders from the
beginning. Indeed, variations of the concept
have always been synonymous with the
quintessential core of the government's
existence and operations, as well as its
legitimacy.
|
What
not so much
distinguishes but
rather narrows the
difference between
the United States
and Saudi Arabia in
this context is that
both acknowledge
that a primary
requirement for
obtaining and
sustaining legitimacy
is that those who
would govern
obtain the consent
of the governed.
|
Further, the
dynamics of decision- and policy-making in Saudi Arabia
are neither fundamentally nor, in many cases,
substantially different from the relationship dynamics
between governors and governed in the United States.
Whether through meetings with constituents in person or
communicating with them via mobile telephone, e-mail and
other ways, the interplay of government and politics in
the two countries bears more than a passing resemblance in
style and substance than many are aware.
Consider the
style and legacies of former U.S. President Lyndon B.
Johnson and former U.S. Rep. Sam Rayburn. While neither
politician was particularly charismatic or renowned for
their eloquence either in speaking or writing, they were
able to establish a strong relationship with Congress and
the American people to pass their agenda.
Indeed, what Johnson and Rayburn personified - the
practice of politics as the art of the possible - has long
been on display among leaders in Saudi Arabia, where the
politics of consultation and consensus have been joined at
the hip.
REPRESENTATIONAL
DYNAMICS
Many American and
Saudi Arabian leaders rightly believe that "all
politics are local." As such, large numbers, but by
no means all, regard Riyadh's decision to begin the
country's national experiment in electoral politics at the
municipal level as only appropriate and prudent. Not least
among the reasons is that it is at this most basic unit of
governance and political representation that matters of
public policy affect the citizenry most directly.
Further, while many Americans and Saudis would prefer to
see a more rapid reconfiguration of the country's
political dynamics, many others beg to differ. In doing
so, they emphasize that there is inherent wisdom in not
being rushed and that there is potentially much merit in
being able to study at length the results of electing
leaders to municipal councils first.
The defining
characteristics of the way in which political reforms have
been introduced in the Kingdom are neither entirely new
nor limited to the local level. For nearly a decade
various representational features have a lready
been incorporated into Saudi Arabia's appointed national
consultative council - the Majlis Al-Shoura - of 120
members. The same features also have been integrated into
the similarly appointed councils in each of the country's
13 provinces.
To be sure, many
foreign commentators scoff at the very notion that
political representation has worked its way into what, in
their view, is synonymous with a significant niche within
the country's political system. But those who hold to such
views have either spent little or no time in the Kingdom,
or they failed to observe these and other dimensions of
the governing process at firsthand.
GENDER ISSUES
It is true that a
prominent feature regarding the nature of Saudi Arabia's
coming elections is the absence of women candidates. Among
the many outsiders looking for any reason to further
discount the long-standing bilateral relationship between
Riyadh and Washington, D.C., there are likely to be those
who find this shortcoming as one reason for panning the
entire process and its results.
The fact that
Saudi Arabian women will not be candidates this time
around has been criticized by many international
commentators. However, sentiment within the Kingdom with
regard to this issue is not nearly as negative as that
espoused by foreign critics. As with women's issues
elsewhere the world over, including the United States,
there is as yet no place on Earth where women are able to
possess and practice their rights without regard to gender
to the same degree as men.
Even so, in a
universally imperfect world with regard to gender
equality, Saudi Arabia continues apace in its efforts to
expand the degree of popular representation, including
that of women, in public affairs. One example is the
diverse nature of the appointees to the country's national
consultative council.
A second example
is that, notwithstanding the absence of female members in
the same forum, prominent women regularly attend the
council's sessions. They also serve as advisers to the
council on issues related to women, family and children -
issues that perforce often pertain to matters of public
policy as they relate to economics and commerce.
Another example
is the convening in the past year of female-only
conventions where the participants contributed to an
ongoing national dialogue on how best to address the many
needs of women that are different from men. A fourth
example is the significantly broadened outreach of
women-owned business establishments and professional
associations with a view to enhancing still further the
involvement of women in the public and private sectors.
As a result of
these moves, many of the country's women are confident
that, on matters relating to electoral politics and
representation, they are almost certain to acquire and be
able to practice unhindered an array of rights and
privileges that their sisters in more developed industrial
nations took many generations longer to obtain.
STAGGERED
ELECTORAL PROCESS
Among many of the
same critics are those certain to take issue also with the
decision to stagger the elections' timing and sequence. As
it is, the elections are scheduled to occur consecutively.
As such, they will take place in a manner similar to the
spacing between the United States' political primaries and
conventions rather than the more common - but by no means
universal - process of holding them all on the same day.
 The
decision to elect only half the municipal councils'
members this time and appoint the other half has been
criticized by some as an overly timid and cautious first
step. But just as many others, if not larger numbers,
disagree. They do so because they view the matter from a
different perspective. They reason that it is in keeping
with a long-standing cultural and societal proclivity not
to introduce national reformist measures all at once.
More
particularly, this alternate viewpoint reflects an
eagerness among some analysts and activists to benefit
from what transpires well or poorly at the rate of one
election at a time. In this way, they reckon there will be
a greater likelihood of being able to incorporate or avoid
certain aspects of the experience in subsequent elections.
Such perspectives
are not grounded in idle speculation. The world abounds
with vivid examples of what can result when countries seek
to accelerate the implementation of governmental and
political reforms without adequate prior consideration of
the implications.
EXTERNAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The Saudi
decision to introduce elections only at the municipal
localities and not at the regional and national levels in
the immediate near-term also has been criticized. However,
not least among the considerations influencing the
government's decision in this regard were the broader
international and regional dynamics in play with regard to
Iran, Iraq and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The potentially
negative implications of any of these regional challenges,
which are hardly far-fetched, provided the government what
it believed were prudent and persuasive reasons why the
first elections should be held at the municipal level.
For the
foreseeable future, the experience of three major Middle
Eastern wars during the past 25 years and current ones
whose future course is uncertain are likely to continue
having a sobering impact on the timing and substance of
the political and other reforms that are underway.
Ensuring an
ability to maintain peace and stability and to protect the
legitimate interests of one's citizens at home and abroad
is never an issue of marginal concern. It remains an
overriding consideration for the governments of many
countries in Arabia and the Gulf, just as it does for the
United States.
Moreover, the
steady foreign militant drumbeat against neighboring Iran
and fellow League of Arab States member Syria is hardly
reassuring. Weighing the potential implications of
American and Israeli threats to those two countries is a
task that neither Saudi Arabian leaders, nor any other
Arab or Islamic leaders, can afford to take lightly.
For these
reasons, and given their country's position and role in
Arab and Islamic affairs, many Saudi Arabian modernists
are prone to question whether the near-term is the most
optimum for introducing reformist measures in the areas of
governance and elections.
For perspective,
even the government of Great Britain, the "mother of
parliaments," decided it was the better part of
wisdom not to hold elections during World War II.
Moreover, prior to America's most recent elections this
past fall, the edginess of electoral officials throughout
the country was palpable.
Indeed, there
were reports of studies conducted by the federal
government that considered the pros and cons of postponing
the elections in the event that some unforeseen national
tragedy occurred.
Viewed in this
light, there is an understandable and broad-based
reluctance among Saudi officials to authorize the
country's popularly elected bodies to address anything and
everything that, under circumstances that were potentially
less foreboding, would not only have merit, but also be
unlikely to impact negatively on stability.
This is
especially the case with regard to issues that relate to
domestic security and external defense. If for no other
reasons than these two, the near-term is likely to see the
elected municipal councilors limit the scope and focus of
their considerations. For the time being at least, these
considerations will most likely center on matters that
affect their constituents most directly, such as health,
education and welfare services, as well as the economy and
business.
MOMENTUM
These and other
Saudis also charge that the momentum with which the
government has reached even this modest stage of expanded
political participation has been slower than they had
hoped.
But in every
country there are those who are more capable and willing
than others to cope with the implications stemming from
the speed with which societal reforms are introduced.
If what has
happened in other Arab and Islamic countries is any guide,
what tends to happen over time is a gradual expansion of
elected deputies' license to address a steadily increasing
number of public policy issues.
In response to
these and other criticisms and questions, Saudis
responsible for ensuring that the elections take place at
specifically scheduled places and dates have hardly been
reluctant to explain why certain procedures are being
adopted and others are not. Indeed, they have generally
been quite forthcoming in providing context, background
and perspective as to the way in which the process has
been structured for what is, after all, a first-time
experiment.
LIKELY MUNICIPAL
PREROGATIVES
In advance of the
election of municipal councilors in Saudi Arabia, what is
unknown is the exact extent to which the councilors on
their own initiative will be free to discuss and debate
matters of public policy or introduce new legislation,
rules or regulations.
More likely, in
keeping with national mores and customs, is that the
councils will proceed initially in close consultation with
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and other government
agencies that cater to the needs and interests of the
citizenry at the grassroots level.
RIAL POLITIK AND
'DOLLAR-OCRACY'?
Among activist
and enlightened citizenries worldwide there is increasing
emphasis on introducing transparency to the ways in which
government officials go about conducting the public's
business. In this context, Saudi Arabia not only has much
experience but would seem to be reasonably well-prepared
to continue exploring the possibilities for further
movement in this direction.
The dynamics of
consultation and consensus in Saudi Arabia are almost
certain to remain essential components of good governance
that concerned citizens - not as a matter of convenience
or preference, but as a matter of right and custom - will
continue to insist on being able to witness in action.
On the other
hand, what one has yet to see in play in Saudi Arabia's
near-term elections, and what many of the country's
leaders are determined to avoid in the foreseeable future,
if at all possible, is any effort to import the U.S.
system by which political campaigns are financed.
Neither in Saudi
Arabia nor in most other countries is there the slightest
sign thus far of citizens wanting to adopt a U.S.-like
system for becoming an elected official. More
specifically, there is strong disagreement with the
professed merits of what many U.S. officials appear so
eager to export to other countries, but which election
officials and political scientists the world over see, to
the contrary, as a seriously flawed system.
Like fingerprints and snowflakes, no two countries are the
same. Instead, each is shaped by its own historical,
geographical, cultural, economic and social circumstances.
Accordingly, Saudi Arabia's systems of governance and
political participation will most likely not conform
anytime soon, if ever, to what those intent on
reconfiguring other people's societies would prefer.
Instead, what is
far more likely to occur in Saudi Arabia is something
else. It is that the nature, pace and extent of its
respective reforms in governance and political
participation will not only continue along its own
distinctive path, but in accordance with a timetable
determined by their citizens' own articulated needs,
interests and objectives, not those of someone else from
either near or afar.
JOHN DUKE ANTHONY is
president and CEO of the National Council on U.S.-Arab
Relations in Washington, D.C.
|
