Whereas in the short term regional tyrants may assist Western interests in a region, in the long run, they may seriously work against the West. A good relationship between nations is the recipe for the economic, social, and physical development of the world in general. This calls for no strained relations whatsoever, but this at times can be achieved at a price. In the context of Saudi Arabia and the western world, it can be said that their relationship is mutual, especially with the United States of America. But their relationship nearly hit rock bottom after the September eleventh attacks of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York. It was established that quite a number of the suspects in that escapade were nationalities of Saudi Arabia (Cordesman 208). Before the attack, these two nations had experienced a good relationship. The Monarchy of Saudi Arabia can be thought to rule its citizens and the Arab world in general because their decisions really count in all aspects of life. Who may have known that the attack was to hit back at what is thought of the American interest in their oil resources. The existence of Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia contributed significantly to the attack because by then the Saudi government was not against their activities in the world. The terrorists took advantage of this and then, the attack was launched for the attack of the United States. This therefore can lead one to the speculations that the good relationship between the West and Saudi Arabia is brewing more trouble in the future (Cordesman 216), because one may not know whether the Saudi government knew of the attacks or not.
Throughout the history of Islam, politics and religion seem to be intertwined, they both go hand in hand and they must all be respected. According to the world English dictionary, in this context, the term consistency means agreement or accordance with facts, form, or characteristics previously stated, therefore in the context of political consistency in regard to Pakistan, as a nation it has experienced different forms of political leadership since it gained independence in 1947 as well as its subsequent separation from India, the forms of leadership ranging from Military to democratic rule. It has got quite a number of alternating democracies and authoritarian military governments (Kukreja & Singh 19). Therefore leadership has been changing hands and the country has seen different leaders with different ideologies. Pakistan even had a woman president that is Benazir Bhutto. Being part of the Muslim world, then that can be considered an achievement because this portrays that women, who have been marginalized for a long time now are seen as equal members of society who can do the same things that men can do thus bringing in the issue of gender parity. There is also the issue of Multi-party democracy in the country at the moment which means that as much as it is a Muslim country it respects the rule of law. But the major problems that have been standing in its way of achieving democracy are the issue of political instability and coups that have faced the nation in the past as well as assassinations and military rule too (Kukreja & Singh 19). These problems have brought forth a major challenge that is yet to be solved in order to get full democracy.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is considered a traditionalist society in the present-day world. It has adopted the Quran as its constitution, therefore, meaning that it is the Sharia law that is used as the mirror for governance. It is the norm that the king must be chosen from the lineage of King Abdul Aziz Al Saud, who is its founding leader. The king must therefore be one of his sons or grandsons and therefore should not come from anywhere else. If one is to ascend to the throne then he has to be approved by the loyal family and also the religious leaders are also known as the Ulema. This means that no one outside the royal family will ascend to the throne. Despite the presence of the legal framework, all decisions are made by the loyal family with of course a few consultations with the most important members of society which implies that the common citizens are not part of the process of decision making. This is not depicted in the Sharia law, the sacred law that is the foundation of Islam to which the nation attributes its leadership and governance.
The Sharia law has got so many varying interpretations but notwithstanding Saudi Arabia does the contrary. The Sharia Law teaches that there should be no room for dictatorship, no place for monarchy or martial law in Islam. If a martial dictator claims that he will present a martial law- he is nothing but a fraud. The Islamic system is based on nothing but democracy (Al – Rasheed 148). The teachings go ahead and prescribe that the leaders should be chosen by the people because even in the days of the prophet Muhammad (pbhu) there existed the house of commons (Mujlisay Aam) and the house of experts ( Mujlisay Khaas)(Al – Rasheed 148) whereby its members were chosen by the people. This clearly states that there should be freedom for the people regardless of the positions they hold in society, to choose their leaders and therefore no leader should inherit any leadership position. By the Saudi Arabian Monarchy, therefore, holding leadership in their family line, it is thought that it has gone against the Sharia Laws which they profess. To go hand in hand with these teachings, therefore, the government should change that system, from an absolute monarchy to a formal democratic leadership.
Works Cited
Al – Rasheed, Madawi. A History of Saudi Arabia. New York. Cambridge University Press. 2002.
Cordesman, Anthony. Saudi Arabia Enters the 21st Century. New York. Praeger Publishers. 2003
Kukreja, Veena & Singh, Mahendra. Pakistan: Democracy, Development and Security Issues. New Delhi. Sage Publishers. 2005.