A large snake suddenly appears on the floor of the Shoura Council, forcing the terrified members to run for cover. The “snake” that is causing all this confusion is not a slithering reptile of the kind that bites or kills its prey. The “snake”, ladies and gentlemen, is no more than a proposal submitted by one of the council members asking his colleagues to initiate a debate on whether to allow Saudi women to drive.
That was not the only funny part of the story. Newspapers that wanted to cover the session and interview members on how they viewed the proposal were disappointed to find that some members refused to talk at all while those who agreed to be interviewed insisted on anonymity.
Until very recently, I thought the Shoura was a platform where views were expressed freely and without fear. I thought that after these years of public discussions and the vast experience the members had gained, there would be among them some with enough courage to stand up and express their view on such a matter, announcing loudly and clearly that they were either for or against this or any other issue tabled for debate.
What is the crime that a Shoura member thinks he would be committing if he openly expressed his position on a certain subject and let the media quote him by name?
The reason for a member’s refusing to express an open view is his fear of being added to the “black list” that includes all those who dare say that the issue of women’s driving is worth being considered.
By acting the way they did, the Shoura members proved to be no more than an echo, reverberating what is circulating in mobile text messages and the Internet — a fear-stricken group easily submitting to the rule of the mob.
For me, the issue here is not whether women should be allowed to drive. If I were a Shoura member, I would have voted against such a proposal. The issue is the ability to exercise public responsibility which requires a member to express his views without fear and without having to hide his identity.
