Women can drive in Saudi Arabia but is it really a big change?

Saudi Arabia is not the place from where one can expect good news for women. It is the most restrictive country for women in the world. It's not for nothing that it has been called the most masculine state and anti-woman kingdom. Though many blame Islam for women plight in Saudi Arabia, there are around fifty other Muslim-majority countries in the world and none of these countries control and regulate women lives as much as the Saudi state.Those blaming Islam for the Saudi state's misogyny, however, have one powerful supporter inside the kingdom, the Saudi state, which justifies its invidious discrimination of women on the basis of Islam, Sharia and tradition.

So, knowing Saudi state's general puritanism and its stance on gender equality, it was a surprise to read a series of news that advance the empowerment of Saudi women. Following are the positive news received over the last two months:

• King Salman issued a historic decree removing the ban on issuance of driving licenses to women. Women will be able to drive by June 2018 (See King Salman’s decree allows women to drive in Saudi Arabia):
• Iman Bint Abdullah was appointed as Assistant Mayor of the Al-Khobar municipality, with special responsibility for information technology. She is the first Saudi woman to hold such a senior position (See First Saudi woman appointed as assistant mayor);
• Fatimah Baeshen was appointed as the first female spokesperson for the Saudi Embassy in Washington DC (See First spokeswoman appointed at Saudi embassy in Washington);
• As part of the independence day celebrations, Saudi women were allowed to enter the King Fahd International Stadium (Riyadh) for the first time to attend a pageant operetta. They were also allowed to attend a concert in Jeddah (See National celebrations open Saudi sports stadium to women for [the] first time);
• Saudi Ministry of Education issued a decree that will allow girls to participate in physical education classes for the first time. The government also agreed, again for the first time, to issue female gym licences. Female gyms previously operated as salons and faced threats of closure (See Saudi Arabia will finally allow girls to take PE — that's a big deal).

Besides openings for Saudi women, the Saudi government also proclaimed at least one future relaxation for foreign women. In August, it was announced that a new 50 island Red Sea luxury resort would be built and this resort would be “governed by laws on par with international standards.” The government did not explicitly say it but the meaning of "international standards" was mostly interpreted as freedom for women to wear whatever they like, including bikinis, at the resort (See Saudi Arabia to open luxury beach resort where women can wear bikinis).

So, why this change and why so fast? This was the kingdom which believed in evolution, not revolution. This was the kingdom where tradition and Wahhabi style Islam reigned supreme unfettered by modernity. Most analysts have pointed out that the force behind these changes is the new Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Since his father ascended to the throne in January 2015, he has gradually acquired more and more power. In the first cabinet of his father, Prince Mohammed was appointed Minister of Defense and he was also the head of the Royal Court. Also in January, he was named the chair of the newly established Council for Economic and Development Affairs. In April 2015, he was appointed Deputy Crown Prince and Second Deputy Prime Minister, just two heartbeats away from the throne. So after April 2015, he was controlling both economic and defence policies of the kingdom (For his pivotal role in the Yemen war see Saudi Arabian Nationalism, Religion and Yemen War, an earlier blog post).

A year later, "Mr. Everything," a name given to Prince Mohammed because of his all-pervasive influence (See Why Saudi's Mohammed bin Salman is 'Mr Everything'), presented Vision 2030, a roadmap for the Saudi economy and society for the next 15 years. In his final promotion, Prince Mohammed bin Salman was made Crown Prince and Deputy Prime Minister by his father in June 2017. 

There are several reasons why openings for the Saudi women are being linked to Prince Mohammed. First, he has said many times that he favors women joining the workforce. In 2016, when he was asked, "Do you think having a greater proportion of women in the workforce would be good for Saudi Arabia?" He replied, "No doubt. A large portion of my productive factors are unutilised. And I have population growth reaching very scary figures. Women’s work will help in both of these issues." Second, he is the main force behind the Vision 2030 which declares:

Saudi women are yet another great asset. With over 50 percent of our university graduates being female, we will continue to develop their talents, invest in their productive capabilities and enable them to strengthen their future and contribute to the development of our society and economy.

Third, the timing of the reforms is too difficult to ignore. In late June, Prince Mohammed vanquishes his last major rival (cousin and former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif) and becomes Crown Prince and in the next two months, a series of reforms happen. Finally, because of his failure to deliver a victory in the Yemen War, he wants a big win to consolidate his power and these changes can give him that, if he can manage the conservative Wahhabi religious establishment. 

Source: Saudi Arabia to allow women to obtain driving licences

The question is whether these changes are going to be a game changer for Saudi women or not. The major change is, of course, permission to drive. Many analysts have pointed out that while important, this change still does not give freedom to drive to Saudi women. After June 2018, Saudi women will still need to have consent from their male guardians:

The key change is that there is no longer any legal prohibition for women to drive. And nor, according to the statements of the formerly reluctant clerics, is there a basis for a ban in sharia law, which governs most aspects of Saudi society. The onus of decisions about whether women can sit behind the wheel has been shifted from the state to families.

Under repressive guardianship laws, male relatives have veto over whether wives or daughters can leave the home unaccompanied. While a woman can be granted a licence and is allowed to drive, a male family member can still stop her from doing so. (See Saudi Arabia: Prince Mohammed plays his biggest card yet)

Madawi Al-Rashid, a Suadi Arabian scholar, has argued not much is going to change. According to her, it is a "public relations stunt" and women are still going to be oppressed in Saudi Arabia and the changes have been solely done to mollify Western critics and get their support:

The Saudi state is one of the most male-dominated in the world. Now it is compelled to look as if it is treating women better to win over critics in the west. As a result, it has embarked on a series of cosmetic reforms...History is littered with dictators who have promoted women, from Turkey’s Atatürk, the Iranian Shah, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Appearing to support women has won dictators applause, especially in the west, where women’s rights have become an axis against which to measure nations and evaluate regimes.

Today’s authoritarian regimes will win extra praise when they appear to be liberating Muslim women from the oppression of Islam. Saudi Arabia is no exception. Here, Muslim women are depicted either as survivors of their patriarchal religion or as heroes who are challenging such a dominant and primitive culture. Like their counterparts in Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere, Saudi women had been framed in this binary image. Dictators conveniently depict themselves as liberators of these downtrodden women while society is shown to be the oppressor. In particular, in recent times, Islam and sharia law are portrayed as the cause of women’s suffering.

Such a narrative is appealing to both Arab dictators and certain constituencies in the west. But allowing women to obtain a driving licence is little more than a public relations stunt designed to cement this notion of the Saudi regime as the liberator of women. (See Women are still not in the driving seat in Saudi Arabia)

Al-Rashid is correct in her assessment that Saudi women lives will not transform because of these few changes. However, she also argues that Saudi Royals are following Ataturk, Muhammad Reza Shah and Bourguiba and like them trying to please the West. If she is correct, this is a big change. It may not be a big change for the Saudi women but it is a metamorphosis for the Royals. Saudi Arabia is based on religious nationalism and Ataturk, Muhammad Reza Shah and Bourguiba were enemies of religious nationalism in their countries. These leaders derived their power by standing against the religious conservatives and Shariah while Saudi Royals justify their rule on the basis of Shariah. So, I would argue that the hold of religious nationalism on Saudi Arabia has loosened a bit because of these changes. If Prince Mohammad keeps on (slowly) moving away from religious nationalism, Saudi Arabia will feel the changes in other areas too. One should be thankful for the small mercies.

Is "Trumpism" a new kind of nationalism?

Baylor University released the results of the fifth wave of the Baylor Religion Survey in September 2017 (See American Values, Mental Health and Using Technology in the Age of Trump). It is one of the most extensive surveys that is regularly conducted on religious attitudes in the United States. Around 11000 adults, chosen randomly from a stratified sample, were asked to respond to the survey and the 1501 complete responses were used for the analysis. 

The survey was conducted in the first few months of Donald Trump's presidency and, besides regular concerns, the survey focused on Trump voters. The survey found that people who voted for Trump in November 2016 generally believed:

• Themselves to be "very religious;"
• That the US is or was a Christian nation; 
• Muslims are a threat to America;
• In gender traditionalism; 
• In an Authoritative God. (p-6 of the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS) report)

From this information, the report writers conclude that a new form of nationalism is visible:

This collection of values and attitudes form the core ethos of what we might call Trumpism. It is a new form of nationalism which merges pro-Christian rhetoric with anti-Islam, anti-feminist, anti-globalist, and anti-government attitudes. (p-7 of the BRS report)

Is "Trumpism" a new kind of nationalism? Trumpism is a new phenomenon and journalists, analysts and academics are still trying to understand it and see where it fits in the political firmament.  Some are calling it a new type of conservatism and the biggest transformation of the conservative movement since the 1960s (See Is Trumpism the New Conservatism?), others tussle with the issue and argue that Trump is not a true conservative but he believes in true conservatism and is governing or will govern like a true conservative i.e. there will be no new type of conservatism as Trumpism will soon merge in the mainstream conservative movement (See Is Donald Trump a conservative? We asked the CPAC faithful).

So, again, is Trumpism a new kind of nationalism? The characteristics of Trump voters identified above give us a clue.

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

First, survey analysis shows that most of the Trump voters consider themselves to be very religious. Religion is important for them and many of them are evangelical Christians. 

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

Second, generally, Trump voters believe that America was or still is a Christian nation. The survey statistics show that almost 60% of Americans believe that American is or was a Christian nation, a sign of the overall strength of religious nationalism in the US. 

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

Most of the those who believed in Christian nationalism voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016. The report also acknowledges the strength of religious/Christian nationalism in the US and its association with Trumpism but did not call Trumpism a type of religious nationalism.

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

The BRS survey results also showed that Republicans generally subscribe more to religious/Christian nationalism than independents or Democrats. This survey result can be interpreted as indicating that Trumpism is not much different from the mainstream Republican Party that is currently moving closer to Christian nationalism. 

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

The third characteristic of the Trump voters, based on BRS survey results, was their Islamophobia or fear of Muslims. Generally, Americans feel threatened by both Muslims and conservative Christians. However, most conservative Christians, who voted for Trump, fear Muslims more than any group. 

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

Fear of other religions or "othering" of religions that are different from one's own is a characteristic of religious nationalists. Clearly, if one feels one's religion is the basis of nationalism, then people who do not believe in one's religion cannot be part of one's nation even if they live next door and speak the same language. The following graph demonstrates that people who believe that America was or is a Christian nation consider refugees from the Middle East, who are almost all Muslims, a terrorist threat.

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

The fourth characteristic of Trump voters is gender traditionalism i.e. men and women have different roles in life. Gender traditionalism is also associated with the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. These characteristics are also associated with Christian nationalism in the US.
Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

These characteristics are associated with religious nationalism worldwide. In fact, religious nationalists belonging to different traditions (Christian, Jewish, Hinduism, Islamic, etc.), though bitter enemies of each other, agree on this issue.

Finally, Trump voters generally believe in an "authoritative God." The concept of authoritative God was given by Baylor University professors Paul Froese and Christopher Bader in their book,  America's Four Gods: What We Say about God — & what that Says about Us, published in 2010. Matt Young explains the thesis of the book and the four types of God.

The thesis of the book is, in essence, that classifying people according to their religious denomination (or lack thereof) tells you little about, for example, their politics or their views on science. Instead, Froese and Bader classify people according to the kind of God they believe in: authoritative, benevolent, critical, and distant (not to mention none).
Froese and Bader pose 2 questions, “To what extent does God interact with the world? To what extent does God judge the world?” As a result of interviews and surveys, they conclude that

Americans differ radically in their beliefs about how closely God guides and judges their lives. These two dynamic dimensions of belief reveal four distinct images of God:

1. The Authoritative God—one who is both engaged and judgmental [31%]
2. The Benevolent God—one who is engaged but not judgmental [24%]
3. The Critical God—one who is not engaged but judgmental [16%]
4. The Distant God—one who is not engaged or judgmental [24%]
[5. Atheist [5%]]

But most important, do these different Gods matter? Unequivocally, yes. A person’s God is a direct reflection of his level of moral absolutism, his view of science, his understanding of economic justice, his concept of evil, and how he thinks we should respond to it. And these powerful relationships exist regardless of where he lives, the color of his skin, the amount of money he makes, how many years he has spend [sic] in school, or the church he attends.

Simply put, America’s four Gods lie at the heart of our moral, cultural, and political disagreements. (See America's Four Gods)

Froese and Bader argue that belief in a specific type of Church (or religion) is not a sure prediction of belief in a specific type of God. However, there is some statistical association, for instance, between belief in a distant God and belonging to "nones."

Coming back to Trumpism, most of the Trump voters believe in an authoritative God and those who believe in an authoritative God are more likely to be religious nationalists. Survey results revealed that those believe in an authoritarian God are more likely to want the declaration of the US as a Christian nation and are not likely to favor the strict enforcement of separation of church and state.

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

Source: BRS Wave 5, 2017

Is Trumpism a new type of nationalism, then? The above discussion indicates that of the five characteristics of Trumpism identified by the BRS Wave 5, at least four are also the characteristics of religious nationalism. So, Trumpism does not appear to be a new type of nationalism. 

Western Wall Prayer Controversy in Israel

Whenever states have tried to implement religious laws/rules in modern times, they have faced challenges. Two of these challenges are particularly intractable. First, while translating a religious regulation into law, the state has to prioritize one interpretation over others, which increases sectarianism. Second, as most of the dominant religious interpretations are patriarchal, the state has to either go against these interpretations or trample over women rights. Israel is facing both these complications while trying to administer the praying at the Western Wall of Temple Mount in Jerusalem. 

The Western Wall is the last remnant of the retaining wall of the Second Jewish Holy Temple on Temple Mount that was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E. The Second Holy Temple existed between 530 BCE and 70 CE. This six centuries period is called the Second Temple Period. The First Holy Temple was built by King/Prophet Solomon (reign 970-931 BCE) and was destroyed by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BCE, standing for more than four centuries. According to the Jewish religious tradition, the Third Holy Temple will be built soon at the same place (Temple Mount) where the first two temples existed and the construction is linked to the End of Times/Messianic age. 

Due to Western Wall's connection with the Second Holy Temple, it is considered the holiest spots where Jews can pray. It has been the most revered Jewish pilgrimage place for centuries. According to the Israeli government, more than 10 million people visit the Western Wall (called Kotel) annually. Since coming under Israel’s control after 1967 War, the Temple Mount Area has been carefully managed so as to lessen contact between Jews and Muslims, who also consider Temple Mount a sacred spot. The Kotel area/prayer arrangements are administered by an authority, which is under the control of ultra-Orthodox Jewry, as Israeli state does not recognize other Jewish traditions. So, while Jews from other traditions (Conservative, Reform, etc.) can pray at the Wall, they have to follow the rules based on ultra-Orthodox tradition. Some of the particularly controversial provisions of this tradition are the refusal to allow a mixed-gender space, women praying as a group, women wearing a prayer shawl (tallit) or women reading from a Torah scroll at the Kotel. Currently, these actions may lead to physical and verbal abuse by the ultra-Orthodox as well as arrest, fine or jail sentence by the state. Women groups and Jews from other traditions have been protesting against the ultra-Orthodox monopoly on Kotel for decades. 

Women of the Wall (WOW), formed in 1998, is an organization working to increase women rights of prayer at the Kotel. It has been appealing to state and courts to end discrimination at the Kotel. It filed its first case in Supreme Court of Israel in 1991. After several delays, wins and losses, the issue is still not settled. The WOW continued to pray together and aloud while ultra-Orthodox continued to harass and abuse them. However, WOW were not reading directly from the Torah. In 2104, WOW smuggled a tiny Torah and read from it. In April 2015, one of the men handed them one of the 300 full-sized Torahs, which are only available to men, and women started reading from it. Violence broke out as ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men entered the women section and tried to physically take Torah away.  Police stopped them but in May locked the gates to prevent women from having Torahs again (See Women of the Wall). To resolve the deteriorating situation Israeli government formed an advisory team. On the recommendations of this team, in January 2016, the Israeli government created a permanent and separate area - an egalitarian prayer space - where ultra-Orthodox rules would not be applicable.

The approved area will be a 900-square-meter section that will be built to replace the temporary platform that was set up in the Southern area of the Western Wall next to Robinson’s Arch some two years ago. The permanent structure will be much larger and will be built with a multi level structure.  In addition, the entrance to the new area will be accessed by a common entrance that will include entrance to the traditional gender-segregated prayer areas already existing.  The new prayer section will also enjoy equal visibility. The "upper plaza" situated outside the official prayer areas will no longer be under the same control as the Western Wall as a result of this new agreement and, as a result, official national ceremonies will take place in which  men and women will now be able to sit together and women can sing. (See Prayer arrangements at the Western Wall (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

The WOW, international Jewry, Reform and Conservative movements were happy with this compromise but ultra-Orthodox public and political parties were not. They are accusing WOW of being more interested in political posturing and deliberate provocation than in religion (See Western Wall rabbi: Women desecrating site by bringing in Torah and The Western Wall Is No Place for Political Posturing). Meir Porush, a member of the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party said that the Women of the Wall to be “sent to the dogs.” He was reprimanded by the Knesset Ethics Committee for his statement (See Knesset Ethics Committee reprimands Haredi MK for the biblical insult to Women of the Wall). 

Source: The Times of Israel (AFP/GALI TIBBON)

The Israeli Chief Rabbinate Council, which is also controlled by the ultra-Orthodox, also leapt into the fray and has forbidden the government from implementing the compromise recommendations:

The council demands that the government of Israel suspend the decision until such a time that it fulfills the obligation to hold a consultation with the Chief Rabbinate, in accordance with the law. It grants a foothold in the holy place to a group that has for years uprooted Zion and Jerusalem from their prayer book, and which publicly declares that they do not view the Torah of Israel as unique and do not believe in the fundamentals of the Jewish faith, one of whose foundations is ‘This is the Torah, it will not be replaced.’ This is a serious matter. The Land of Israel is outraged by the introduction of alien things into the holy place. (See Chief Rabbinate: Israel Must Suspend New Western Wall Prayer Arrangements) 

As ultra-Orthodox parties are part of the current ruling coalition, they enjoy enormous power. They were not happy with the compromise and eventually forced Prime Minister Netanyahu to rethink. In March 2016, he announced that bureau chief to revisit the compromise deal given his ultra-Orthodox partners’ objections. This change of stance, of course, did not go well with the WOW and Reform and Conservative Jews and they have decided to file an appeal in the Supreme Court (See Pluralist groups warn government over foot-dragging on Western Wall deal. So stay tuned for more controversy.