Saudi women gain right to vote in meaningless elections
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 3:59PM From the headlines you would imagine a huge leap forward in women's rights in Saudi Arabia - from the New York Times "Saudi Monarch Grants Women Right to Vote" or from the Guardian "Getting the vote could herald real change for Saudi women".
Really? Because as great as it is that Saudi Arabia has joined the rest of the world in allowing women to vote (except of course the Vatican City, as the last bastion of male exclucivity), those elections are not going to be worth a dime. In the last 50 years there has only been one election that anyone could vote in, and it was a local council election where the monarchy determined eligibility to stand for election and directly appointed half the members. So at some point in the future there will be another local council election with the result pre-ordained by the Monarch, but a few women will be allowed to vote for the remaining window dressing. Whoop-e-bloody-do.
It is hard to imagine this move as anything other than a (successfull) attempt to give the illusion of progress and democracy where none exist. The King of Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarch, who bloody cares who can "vote"? What is a vote without democracy! Progress would be the women of Saudi Arabia getting rights that they can actually use, such as the right to marry who they want and travel where they want. Anything else is just PR.
Adrian Liston | tagged Democracy, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City, sexism in Politics, Religion | 5 Comments | Share Article
Reader Comments (5)
At least Saudi Arabia realises that they are seen as backward, and are taking small steps to remedy that perception. I agree that a lot more is needed, but a small step forward, no matter how minor, is still a move in the right direction.
I agree with lydia, also, even though the vote itself is indeed meaningless it sends a signal how ever small it may be to (the conservative part of) the male population of saoudi-arabia.
Also, that new york times article title is just stating a fact and the article itself is quite nuanced and does mention that Saoudi-Arabia remains an absolute monarchy and explains why granting the right to vote to women was easier to do than granting other rights such as the right to drive a car.
I'm not sure that taking small steps to remedy the perception is good for trying to remedy the reality. It is like Bush and Obama blocking the release of the Abu Grahib photos because they create a bad image for America, without actually shutting down Gitmo or stopping secret renditions. Should we be happy that they at least seem to recognise that what they are doing is evil? Or worried that their solution is to put a gloss on the terror and keep doing it under the radar? Is the Burmese Junta taking a small step when they allow elections? Or do the one party rigged elections just provide them cover against international pressure?
Of course doing something substantial is better than trying to improve the perception. But I don't think that's what Lydia was saying. The comparisqon here is that realising that your country is being looked down upon for its conservatism, and feeling the need to change the perception is better than not feeling that need, and being proud or boastful about your policies.
In your example as well, a country recognising that what they do is evil is better than them not recognising it. Of course not doing anything evil in the first place is much better, nobody will argue with that.
"In your example as well, a country recognising that what they do is evil is better than them not recognising it."
Is it really? Ethically I think that is dubious. Which is worse, a person who is unaware that they are keeping their neighbours awake with their noise, or a person who is aware but does it anyway?