Posted on 12/11/2001 4:30:36 AM PST by veronica
Saudi Arabia has no need for democratic elections because they put unqualified people in power, an influential Saudi prince said Monday.
Prince Sultan Ben Turki, a businessman and nephew of King Fahd, said in an interview with the Associated Press that democracy did not fit the reality of Saudi Arabia, where the king rules and is advised by an appointed body, the shura council.
His comments are part of a quiet debate within the Saudi royal family on the sensitive topic of political reform.
The prince criticised the comments of his cousin, Prince Al Waleed Ben Talal, a billionaire businessman who called for elections in an interview last month with the New York Times.
He said Al Waleed's comments support Western interests and “those who oppose Saudi policies.” He did not elaborate.
The Saudi government holds that it practises an Islamic form of democracy through traditional consultation between ruler and ruled in informal gatherings. The founding Al Saud family dominates the country political structure, holding most of the important national and regional government posts.
“If the (Saudi) people were able to freely elect members of the shura council, they would not successfully choose members with sufficient expertise or experience,” sultan said, adding that in some countries “some candidates attain their seats by buying votes.”
“Saudis, no matter their social class, participate in policymaking through their daily face-to-face meetings with leaders of their communities and through discussions in the shura council,” Sultan said.
In May, King Fahd increased the number of members of the council from 90 to 120. It is the closest institution the kingdom has to a parliament, but its function is strictly advisory.
Sultan said the Saudi people fully support their leaders. From time to time there were Western calls for reform that were taken up by Saudis, but these calls were “ignorant” of the reality, he said.
Saudis understand the benefits of Western science and technology, but “we don't need to make our customs and traditions conform with Western social and behavior systems,” he added.
Is having one's basic rights being decided by the masses something that is desirable? If the Saudis had something comparable to our Constitution, having a monarchy would not be so bad.
Unfortunately, our nation has gone from being a democratic republic to a republican democracy, whereas 535 people are chosen to vote willy-nilly on what our rights should be.
"...look at me, I'm a perfect example."
I wonder if this twit prince realizes exactly what his statement is going to antagonize.
While there is no shortage of countries ruled by tyranny who have tumbled, your statement is simply wrong. Would you describe China as unstable today? Were the Balkans more stable under Communist rule than before or after?
Preserving friendly foreign governments is in our national interest, but that doesn't mean we don't seek to cause them to move toward responsible liberty for their people. But the circumstances have to be appropriate.
Pakistan provides an excellent example. While we have always applauded their democratic principles, we are actually quite pleased that General Musharraf is in absolute control of that government right now. He has provided remarkable stability at a time when the whole region could have exploded if bin Laden had achieved his goals.
If that makes me "mistaken" in your book, I can live with it.
We have had our own bloody and repressive periods in Western history which were carried out in the name of Christianity. Would it be fair for the head of state in an Islamic country to point to the Spanish Inquisition to ridicule the notion that Christianity is a peaceful religion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.