Saudis err towards status quo despite “golden chance” of constitutionalism
Shaker Nabulsi

It has often been written, argued and suggested that King Abdullah has a golden opportunity to create what would in effect be the fourth Saudi state, in the form of a constitutional monarchy.

The issue has arisen and subsided on several occasions in the past five or so years, spurred on by the kingdom’s soul-searching in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001. The linkage between this event and the emergent debate was initially made by Matrouk Al-Faleh, the Saudi political activist, who along with three others was jailed for voicing his opinions on the issue.

The past four years have seen many of Saudi Arabia’s intellectuals and reformists involved in the issuance of a variety of announcements and memoranda calling for the creation of a constitutional monarchy. Among them was that issued in mid-September 2003 – entitled ‘A call to the Saudi people and leadership: constitutional reform first’. The statement was by 116 academics and professionals from the media, business, and by a number of professors of Islamic law at different Saudi universities.

This particular memorandum called for a range of political reforms, beginning with the creation of a constitutional monarchy and with it the writing of a Saudi constitution. It went on to suggest the formation of an independent national committee of intellectuals who were specialized in constitutional affairs and sociology, who would draft a constitution which would then be put to a vote in a public referendum. The signatories to the memorandum stated their view that these steps should be considered as a move towards establishing a “Social Contract” between the authority and the people, and that the application of the constitutional reforms should take place within three years.

Writing at Saudi Debate, Shaker Nabulsi has an interesting essay. He posits that the engine of reform is a strong middle class. But the Saudi middle class is still weak, disorganized, and fragmented. That is changing, though, he says. Worth reading the whole thing.