IN a recent article in the Arabic magazine Al-Majalla, the reform movement in Saudi Arabia was in the spotlight. Different opinions were featured regarding efforts for change, the opposition to reform and there was also some analysis which shed a bit of light on the social reaction and readiness for this change. A Saudi novelist made a point that summarized the atmosphere in a single sentence. “If we want to change things, we have to be persistent and quick. It is inexplicable that at present in Saudi Arabia, we are still discussing whether to teach English in elementary school and whether PE should be introduced in girls’ schools.”
The article highlighted an important point that faces everyone puzzled about the slow pace of change — social resistance. Once a change has been implemented, you may feel the resistance in people’s reactions and sometimes that resistance may go as far as actually refusing to accept the change.
For example, a few days ago while talking to a friend, I discovered that in some areas of the Kingdom the women’s ID is issued in two formats — one with a photograph and one without. I was surprised and asked what the point was of having a card that does not have a photo. Wasn’t that the point behind issuing these cards in the first place, so that women would have both names and faces? Weren’t we trying to avoid all the problems of fraud and theft that had occurred because of women not having IDs? So I asked my friend if having two different official IDs was legal? The official ID card is issued with a photo and is supposed to be the only document that is valid. She explained, “People are different from one area to another; in our town, (she lives in a small town) it is considered shameful that a man should see a strange woman’s face. Some husbands of women who got IDs will not allow a strange man — for example at the airport or in a government office — to see his wife’s face. The women must go to another room where a female officer verifies her identity. But now it is been made easier by the officials since they have issued us papers that function in the same way as IDs except that they do not carry pictures.” To add amazement to my already incredulous surprise, she then added nonchalantly, “I was also told that I could put a piece of tape on my photo if a man were going to inspect it.”
Somehow I fail to understand what is happening. I know that in some areas women never uncover their faces in front of strangers but when it comes to the law, should not all people’s identities be clear? Why resort to twisted methods that might make breaking the law easier even if it makes certain narrow-minded people feel good? Why do we always have to cater to that kind of thought?
Do we have two systems here? It does not seem to be right to apply one system in Jeddah and another one in Taif or Qassim. But then there is another question: If some people are not comfortable with change, what should the government do? If the matter is agreed upon as something to be changed, shouldn’t the system be implemented regardless of what some disapproving voices say? For those who are opposed to having women’s pictures on IDs, the law that women can have IDs is not compulsory and so their womenfolk do not have to have one. To play both ways — to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds — is ridiculous and exposes us to needless ridicule.
A journalist in Al-Majalla was quoted as saying that having laws is not an end in itself and that the government must make sure the law is enforced. And this means informing the public as well as those who will have to implement the changes. But why do people resist change? I understand that sometimes social issues are self-perpetuating but when change becomes a necessity, how shall we go about it?
A Shoura Council member said to the magazine that in order for society to accept change, there must be local media campaigns to inform people. He said, “The media has to play a bigger role in explaining to a skeptical society why these changes are necessary.” He spoke of the resistance as a cultural atmosphere that is not ready to accept changes; he gave as an example the resistance to having women in the Shoura. He said that the government should convince society of the need for this change before implementing it. He made the point that whereas there is local resistance to having women members in the council, having women advisors who actually travel as part of the council has had the effect of getting the council internationally recognized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
These remarks raise another important question: If we have to deal with the “other” — as in other countries perceptions of us — do we also have to deal with the ‘other’ within our society. One opinion says before we deal with our image in the outside world, shouldn’t we first get to know our image inside and decide what our image basically is. Should we have a domestic dialogue between different schools of thought in the country?
For Men Who Do Not Look in the Mirror
A few days ago, Arab News carried an article from someone who admitted that he had changed his mind about women working and having mobile phones. He is now in favor of both. He went on to say that these days, calls for women to drive do not reflect the majority opinion and that those voices come only from affluent women and not from those who have more pressing problems in their lives to deal with. He ended his article by saying that if women drive, there is bound to be an increase in accidents since women will be busy looking in the mirror instead of concentrating on the road.
I wonder if the writer — a Saudi male — has ever observed the number of Saudi men who adjust their headdress by looking in the rearview mirror while they are driving. I wonder if he has ever observed Saudi men who turn the rearview mirror to a vertical position so that they can get a better view of their headdress and how it hangs. All this, of course, done while driving. And he has the nerve to ask that mirrors be removed from cars which women might drive. Talk about pots calling kettles black.
The sad fact is that Saudi Arabia has the highest rate of car accidents per capita in the world. We need to remind the writer that this is true in a country where women are in the car but never behind the wheel. All these accidents and these shameful statistics derive from men. It is known and has been documented in many studies done in many different countries that women are much more careful when driving; insurance charges reflect this fact.
The writer’s contention that only affluent women are seeking the right to drive is simply not correct. Each woman in Saudi Arabia needs transportation and having to depend on someone else to drive her around is not a practical solution — for the men in her family or for her. The fact that women have to hire drivers is neither a practical nor cheap solution to this problem. In addition, many women do not feel safe riding with total strangers every day and they do not feel their families are safe either but they have no alternative.
Only last week there was a terrible accident in our neighborhood. A driver was driving two children to school. There was an accident which resulted in his death as well as the death of both children. When discussing this tragedy among friends, one asked, “Is it better for a mother to be able to take her children to school every day and be comfortable or should she have to let her children ride with strangers whom she does not know and may not trust?”
That is the way some women see it and we have just opened the discussion once again as to whether women should have the option to drive or not.
