It is quite sensible to have two human rights commissions, one governmental and other non-governmental. The one set up by the government may act as a supervisory body to monitor the performance of government agencies and propose the laws and mechanism to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights.
But the independent body is also to be headed by a government official and the entire committee selected by the government. What should we expect from a committee that is totally controlled by the government, remains loyal to the government and works under its watchful eye? Can we expect it to expose human rights violations committed by government agencies?
Our experience with some private bodies designated as civil institutions is not encouraging at all, especially when considering their relationship with various government agencies. Soon after their establishment these organizations became a carbon copy of the state-run establishments, imitating them in every respect and talking and acting just like them.
Take for example the chambers of commerce, which in my view are no longer representative of the members they claim to work for. Worse, these chambers, on the pretext of cooperating with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and other government departments, commit acts that go against the interests of their members, who are pressured into paying the subscription fees that make up most of the chamber’s budget. The so-called cooperation has reached a point where chambers hire government officials to monitor the performance of their members, the businesspeople.
The chambers have failed to speak for businesspeople or convey their views to government officials and decision-makers. A good example is how the Saudization drive is being enforced. Decisions relating to Saudization have done great damage to the young, the very segment targeted by the drive. These decisions have weakened the ability of the private sector to create more jobs, led to the flight of capital and dampened the job market. Chambers continue to reflect the official point of view, and when they do speak out, something they rarely do, they speak in a barely audible voice.
Another example is the relationship between Tawafa organizations serving pilgrims during Haj and the Ministry of Haj. These hospitality organizations have been reduced to serving as ministry branches. They can’t employ their talents and utilize their potential after the ministry assumed an executive rather than supervisory role.
Is this the fate we have to expect for our non-governmental human rights commission? I am not enthusiastic about a commission headed by a government official and operating under government supervision.
Arab News From the Local Press 16 July 2003
