What Saudi women voting says of the Mideast

Given their first chance to vote, more than 80 percent of Saudi women showed up at the polls Dec. 12. The social trends that were behind the Arab Spring are alive and well, pointing to a different future in the Middle East than one of war and Islamic caliphates.

AP Photo
A Saudi woman casts her ballot at a polling center during municipal elections in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 12

Historians of the Middle East may look back on 2015 as the year when Islamic State burst on the world scene and Iran struck a deal to curb its nuclear ambitions. Yet the region also has a quieter history, one of portents rather than power. On Dec. 12, or almost five years to the date after the Arab Spring began, women in Saudi Arabia were allowed to cast votes and run for office for the first time. 

To be sure, this new right of Saudi women to participate in elected local councils was granted merely by a decree of the late King Abdullah, and perhaps only to shore up the monarchy’s legitimacy. Still, the truly historic part was this: More than 80 percent of eligible women voted – or almost twice as many as the number of men, and far above voter turnout in the West. Their rush to the ballot box was both inspirational and aspirational.

The Middle East is beset by at least four violent conflicts (in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya) yet the same social trends that led to the 2011 democratic revolts in Arab countries and to the 2009 Green Movement in Iran are still bubbling below the surface. In fact, popular frustration about jobs, dignity, or individual rights could be even higher than in 2010 when a young Tunisian fruit vendor lit himself on fire and ignited an anti-dictator rebellion in the region.

Polls confirm a steady support of democracy at about 70 percent. “Despite all the turmoil, relatively few citizens throughout the region have changed their views either about the degree to which their respective countries are democratic, or about democracy’s desirability,” writes Michael Robbins, director of the Arab Barometer opinion survey, in the October issue of Journal of Democracy. 

Another survey of Islamists, conducted by academics Charles Kurzman and Didem Türko¢glu, finds support for democracy is rising even among these conservative Muslims. And a World Bank report last April said that governments of the Middle East and North Africa are “failing to meet the needs of citizens and continues to be a source of widespread dissatisfaction.”

The main root of instability in the Middle East, says State Department regional expert Anne Patterson, is the challenge to the political legitimacy of authoritarian rulers. “Even during these difficult days, there is evidence that irreversible changes are under way in the region,” she told Congress in October.

Most Arabs, says United States Secretary of State John Kerry, are “far more interested in plugging into the world economy than slugging it out with historic foes.” (About two-thirds of the Middle East population is under age 25.)

The news of Saudi women voting for the first time may seem minor, yet it helps counter the impression of a region doomed by ancient forces, wars, or by its own sense of historic victimhood.

“There is no such thing as a Middle East curse,” states French political scientist Dominique Moïsi in Les Echos newspaper. “To conceive of the Arab world only as a victim, a mindset that leads in turn to such visions as a reconstituted caliphate, is no proof of love.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What Saudi women voting says of the Mideast
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today