In a few weeks, the King Abdul Aziz Center for National Dialogue will convene the fourth round of public debate. This time, the focus will be on young people and their problems.
When the idea of these open forums bringing together people of differing opinions and beliefs was first suggested, the general public saw them as the means for debating matters of public interest and coming up with solutions to problems. The forums were promoted as an opportunity for people to discover the real meaning of “differences of opinion” as a natural phenomenon. The convening of national dialogues was a source of pride for those who saw in it an opportunity for Saudi Arabia to prove it as an entity capable of accommodating every one and of leaving behind the period when silence prevailed.
The question now is whether we will be able to transfer the dialogue from a small group of so-called intellectuals to a much broader and more inclusive one. Such an objective may prove difficult unless the forums are turned into bodies capable of reflecting the genuine concerns of the man on the street instead of those voiced by an atypical group within our society.
Judging from the performance of the center over the past two years, there seems to be some confusion surrounding its announced functions and the role people want it to play. If the center confines itself to studies and papers produced by a small group or proposed by the center itself, its work would be no more than periodical gatherings held here and there. Actually, what has been produced so far are academic studies and lengthy articles that seem to reflect the opinions of the small group who prepared them.
In other words, the way the center is operating can be said to be effective on one side and weak on the other. It is effective in the sense that it has succeeded in bringing into the open the concept of public discussions which debate national issues — something that until very recently has been absent. The weak side is that the effort to come up with new ideas remains confined to a group of academics and media people and so lacks the force of a real public dialogue. It is only by expanding the group that will enable us to say we have responded to the real needs and aspirations of ordinary people.
