“The world is a culturally diverse place and no single culture has a monopoly on democratic practice.”
— Nelson Mandela
NELSON Mandela is currently visiting Saudi Arabia. He has written a forward to the English edition of “Islamic Political Development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” His forward provides the basis for this frank study of the foundations and development of Saudi Arabia’s Islamic government.
Dr. Faisal ibn Mishal Al-Saud presents a case which questions the Western definition of democracy and invites us to consider his well-argued and researched viewpoint. Dr. Al-Saud, with his unique personal insights, conducts spirited research into the techniques of implementing an Islamic system of government. The research addresses the socio-political challenges of a country involved in secular activities yet cleaving to the underlying principle that God and His word, as revealed in the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith, is the sole source of authority and state sovereignty.
The result is a fascinating and authoritative book that, having examined a number of well-established political theories and philosophies, explains clearly how these two apparently contradictory needs are reconciled. Published in both Arabic and English, the book is a fascinating insight, conducted by one who is qualified to comment on a political system little understood outside the Kingdom.
The book is candid and on occasion takes interesting detours down side roads; the author’s conversation does much the same, especially when a particularly interesting idea attracts his attention. He gives the impression of being actively interested in everything and happy to investigate a subject until he is satisfied he has looked at every angle. “Islamic Political Development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” is the result of his investigations and his enthusiasm colors the prose of what is a rather sober subject.
Why was the book written? Dr. Al Saud’s answer was characteristically direct. “To reach an important target and to encourage understanding between cultures and traditions. I would like this book to show our culture and our system. Islam is a religion of faith and justice that caters for people’s interests without the harmful things in life.” He added that the goal of the book was to show the richness of Islamic culture yet how it is capable of updating itself to accommodate the changing world without forsaking its principles.
In Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world, there is a strong dependence on family ties and a reliance on the cooperation and support of family members. Dr. Al-Saud sees this as a major difference between cultures and the political systems. “Here family looks out for family, tribe looks out for tribe. Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, said that everybody has to know his roots.” These roots, he said, provide a direct line of communication through family and tribe to local and then national leader.
Herein, Dr. Al-Saud argues, lies the essential difference between Islamic and Western democracy. There is a direct line of access, exemplified by the majlis — the open meeting that any citizen may attend. It affords all citizens access to the leader. It is interesting to reflect on the likelihood of getting even halfway toward presenting a grievance in person to a Western leader. The Kingdom’s Majlis Ash Shoura or Shoura Council, which allows any citizen direct access to his local or national leader is democracy in a direct and traditional form.
Beginning with a conceptual overview of political development, Dr. Al-Saud favors Professor James Bill’s test of development which he defines as “the capacity of a political system to initiate, absorb and sustain continuous transformation,” a process which Professor Bill contends is “a process of admitting all groups and interests, including newly recognized interests, into full participation without disrupting the efficiency of the political system and without limiting the ability of the system to choose and pursue policy goals.” After synopses of other political theories and their development, Dr. Al-Saud fairly concludes, “No agreement exists among political scientists as to its exact definition.”
Therein lies both the weakness of the science of political analysis and the strength of the argument that Dr. Al-Saud constructs. He seeks to demonstrate the viability of an Islamic system where the word and laws of God give the state sovereignty rather than the people or rulers. It forms the basis of the reconciliation of political and economic development with Islam. The Western separation of religion and state, says Dr. Al-Saud, was the result of a conflict between rulers who claimed they ruled “in the name of God” and their subjects. Dr. Al-Saud describes a flexibility within Islam that allows development of state institutions and bureaucracies that benefit the people and allows the accommodation of the demands of the secular world as long as they do not run counter to God, the ultimate authority. The Islamic state combines religious doctrine and public policy while respecting the opinion of the majority in a way similar to Western democracy. Thus, the separation of political institutions from the laws of God was simply not an issue in Islamic states; the rulers never claimed to rule in God’s name but they, like their people, accepted His ultimate authority.
Dr. Al-Saud concludes that political development is, when applied to Saudi Arabia, “a process of transformation, a movement from the status quo toward systems capable of obtaining emerging goals while providing needed institutions which facilitate government goals.” As part of this process, he sees the Kingdom as having to cope with challenges from within the political system itself. One such challenge, he says, is the Shoura Council.
After an examination and sketch of the traditional and tribal politics of the Gulf, he narrows the focus to the structure of the Saudi government itself. Dr. Al-Saud traces the origins of the Majlis Ash Shoura from the time of King Abdul Aziz. Dr. Al-Saud suggests that here, at the beginning of the Majlis, was a democratic intent to involve local rulers and follow the Islamic principle of consulting with the wise and righteous. He describes how, over time and with the development of Saudi Arabia as a wealthy nation, the king took over the functions of care and responsibility for the tribes that had formerly been the province of individual tribal leaders. By 1993, the Majlis had 60 members while at present there are over 90. The Majlis has no legislative power but has considerable powers in consultative and advisory capacities. It also possesses the power to hold ministers accountable and acts as a conduit for the flow of information to, and feedback from, the citizens of the Kingdom.
Having laid theoretical groundwork and background to provide his context, Dr. Al-Saud then begins a highly detailed analysis of the work and construction of the Majlis Ash Shoura. His opinions and conclusions are based on the results of a detailed questionnaire submitted to its members which he includes in the book’s appendices. These include documents as diverse as the “Procedures for Investigation and Trial of Majlis Ash Shoura Members” and a copy of the Basic Government Law.
As an investigative document, it provides a new insight for anyone working in the country or anyone with an interest in Saudi political structure. It dispels the illusion that policy and decisions are passed “on the nod” and reveals some very human moments. The sheer volume of policy decisions, debates and research that the members of the council get through produces heartfelt complaints of insufficient facilities, very extended working hours and real pressure. This is supported in part, for example, by a frustrating bye-law that members of the Majlis Ash Shoura are not allowed to remove documents concerning their work off the premises.
The book is a unique insight into a system of government and principled behavior that the West has often had difficulty in understanding. It is written with remarkable candor and the result is a document that should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the fundamental differences between two equally valid but differing views of democracy.