May 14, 2006
COVENANT THEOLOGY:
A Rebel Prince's Vision for Reform: Saudi's Long-held Ideals Gaining an Audience with Royal Family (Anthony Shadid, 5/14/06, Washington Post)
[Prince] Talal is many things: for 50 years, the most liberal figure in a family that remains the most conservative and traditional of the Persian Gulf's monarchies and tribal dynasties; a philanthropist who brings a ruthlessness to business that he once saved for politics; a glimmer of light for the kingdom's liberals, many of whom acknowledge that change here will probably only come under the auspices of religion and its modernization, not through the secular talk of civil society and individual rights.Perhaps most compelling, though, is that Talal takes a debate about democratic reform in the Arab world, defined lately by the Bush administration, and illustrates a broader, more enduring context, one that speaks to experience rather than promise. His calls for change are little different than in the 1950s and '60s, when he was dismissed as a communist sympathizer; he remains a critic of U.S. policy, citing Iraq's trauma as the latest example. To Talal, the battle itself is not new, only the players. And in his words are a sense of vindication for ideas he believes are no less crucial today.
"The world has changed, not me," he said. "History has proved the rightness of what I was talking about."
"Some of the members of the family were against those ideas," he added. "Now they're talking about them."
These days, Talal advocates a constitution that would bind an absolute monarchy by law, "a social contract between the ruler and those who are ruled." The parliament, now an appointed, relatively toothless body known as the Consultative Council, would be at least partially elected, with the right to oversee the budget, monitor the government and question ministers, he said.
Women? "Right now, we have more than 2 million female students," he said, shaking his head. "When they graduate, where are they going to go? Either you close the schools and leave them to illiteracy or you grant them an opportunity to work."
He laughed. "Can you imagine, can anyone imagine, that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia?" he said.
His list went on: Progress is impeded by "the opposition of religious extremists." The religious establishment, long the allies of his family, should stand aside as the country forges a division of power -- judicial, executive and legislative. Along the way, the kingdom, he said, must determine the mechanism of passing the monarchy from the aging sons of the country's founder to their grandsons before simmering rivalries between the branches of the House of Saud flare into the open.
"The goal remains the same," he said, "the participation of people in forming opinions and making decisions."
The same words, a different era: "Now we're freed from the notion of the Red Prince, the name the Americans gave me."
A constitutional monarchy is the ideal form of government. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 14, 2006 8:56 AM
Oh really? And who is the man (or woman) who would be King of the United States?
Posted by: Jeff at May 14, 2006 10:51 AMElizabeth
Posted by: oj at May 14, 2006 10:56 AMTaylor? Or the one who has been dead for 400 years.
Posted by: Jeff at May 14, 2006 11:08 AMHer rightful successor.
Posted by: oj at May 14, 2006 11:13 AMConstitutional monarchy is all well and good, but when the extended royal family numbers thousands of ambitious and contentious, the transition might prove a little tricky.
Posted by: jd watson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 14, 2006 12:53 PM
I thought we advanced past that whole king-thing about 250 yrs ago.
Posted by: sharon at May 14, 2006 3:45 PMThank you, His Royal Juddness...
Posted by: Barry Meislin at May 14, 2006 4:27 PM"Constitutional monarchy" covers a lot of ground. Are we talking about a mere figurehead or somebody who actually has some authority?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 14, 2006 8:22 PMwww.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2002/05/god_save_the_king.html
Posted by: oj at May 14, 2006 10:25 PMOrrin, you're absolutely right on this one. The preeminince of Britain today, indeed its continued ability to surge futher ahead of its sorry excuse for competitors readily proves your point.
As the only guy around here who actually comes from one, I'm a little intrigued by Orrin's notion of what a constitutional monarchy is. From his linked 2002 post:
Suppose for just a moment that two things about last weekend's French elections were changed. Suppose that Le Pen had actually won the presidency, though with a very small percentage of the vote (we'll say 30%) and suppose that France still had at least a British style monarch. On the
following Monday, the King of France, though he has not exercised any real authority since the 18th Century, steps forward and declares : "These election results are a blight upon the soul of France and we can not allow them to stand. We, therefore, declare this election null and void and order that a new election be held, immediately."
Oh, We do, do We? A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy bound by the constitution, and I don't know of many of those that provide minority governments are only legitimate provided they are not blights upon the soul of the nation. You seem to think it implies having the power to sidestep the constitution if the outcome is distasteful. That's the Divine Right of Kings.
Also, be careful what you wish for. The left might have thought in 2000 that that was just a peachy idea. Maybe even in 2004, blights being blights and all.
Posted by: Peter B at May 15, 2006 4:29 AMThe constitution would simply allow the monarch to dissolve the government and hold new elections when he felt it was in the best interests of the nation. The British monarch probably still has that implicit power, though it would obviously cause a crisis were she to exercise it.
Posted by: oj at May 15, 2006 8:35 AMKirk:
Exactly. The decline of Britain traces directly to the decreasing power of the monarch and house of Lords. The more power you concentrate in one governing institution the easier it becomes to go badly off track, as they did in their socialist 20th century.
www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1207
Posted by: oj at May 15, 2006 8:50 AMA French king who thinks that the nativist party is a blight on the French nation? Yeah, that's a safe bet.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 15, 2006 12:04 PM