“Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest,” the philosopher Denis Diderot said. The same phrase is now widely repeated across Arabia — or Saudi Arabia, as it is named under the dynastic autocracy. It is only a matter of time before the revolutions that have swept the Arab world reach the Saudi kingdom.
Most of the factors that led to the Arab uprisings are present in Arabia. The Saudi regime holds tens of thousands of political prisoners, most without charge. The scale of corruption is staggering: in the most recent budget alone, $100-billion is unaccounted for.
Despite its huge oil revenue, unemployment rates are soaring, the average salary is less than $1 300 a month and 22% of the population live in poverty. Meanwhile, the royal family treats the country and its people as its private property.
But the expansion in communication tools has deprived the regime of the secrecy and deception on which its legitimacy relied. Opposition-run satellite stations now voice an alternative message and the internet and cellphones allow easy interaction, making virtual debates more effective than real ones.
In the past few months one anonymous Twitter account, @mujtahidd, has attracted more than 220 000 followers thanks to its ability to expose corruption in a detailed, accurate manner. @mujtahidd has already published thousands of remarkably well-informed tweets about several royal family members, including King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz.
The popularity of @mujtahidd has gone beyond Twitter. It has become the talk of the nation, so much so that blocking the account inside the kingdom did nothing to stop its number of followers escalating.
Reformists from many different backgrounds are increasingly audible. Most are from the religious ranks. It is these religious reformers themselves, not the liberals, who repeat Diderot’s call for a settling of accounts with both princes and their tame religious hierarchy.
It is this kind of apparent contradiction — and the complexity of Arabia’s geopolitical map — that makes many observers incapable of forecasting the kingdom’s political future.
The Western media, when they notice the ferment in Arabia at all, focus on the Shia revolt and the position of women. It is true that the Shia are very active in protest — their demonstrations are massive. However, they are a minority and the regime links them with Iran, which means their protests are isolated. The regime has, so far, used these protests in its favour by persuading the Sunni majority of a threat of a Shia “takeover”.
In Arabia, where both sexes are deprived of their basic rights, the West’s focus on women’s rights has backfired because it has been twinned with unpopular “Western” values.
Paying attention exclusively to these two questions distracts from more far-reaching challenges that threaten the regime’s very existence.
So why has revolution not yet reached Arabia? Despite the widespread conviction that change is necessary, reformers remain hesitant about declaring their views, let alone taking action. Scaremongering in the media associates change with chaos and bloodshed.
More significant still is the level of distrust between activists, making any collective act of protest difficult.
This does not mean change is impossible. Even the heir to the throne, Prince Nayef, is regarded with so little reverence that there are calls from within the country to bring him to trial.
One activist wrote an open letter to Nayef saying protests would erupt after the departure of the king, who is 90. Meanwhile, official religious scholars are being rejected in favour of independent ones, because the religious establishment is regarded as a partner in corruption.
The balance of factors in Arabia is clearly tipping in the direction of change. Change of such a scale is usually triggered either by an expected event — such as the death of the king — or an unexpected incident, as was the case with Mohamed Bouazizi, whose self-immolation sparked Tunisia’s revolt.
Two weeks ago a tribe in Taif prevented the security forces from enforcing a royal order to confiscate their land. And people are asking: If one small tribe can regain its land through peaceful protest, why should the entire nation not reclaim its rights? —