The Saudis are not ignorant of the problem. A Saudi company is even sponsoring a media campaign about the abuse of foreign workers, appealing to religious decency with the exhortation: He who shows no mercy, will receive no mercy. What really struck me in the BBC reportage is that some Saudis seemed more upset about the abuses being revealed than about the abuses themselves. Campaign critics point out that domestic workers are abused in other countries too (as if this were an excuse) or say that "discussing domestic problems on satellite channels turns them into a scandal [for Saudi Arabia]". And why should it not be a scandal? Can't a scandal be a good thing if it finally forces a government to correct hidden actions that would be considered shameful according to international norms? The argument that many foreign domestics are treated just fine by their Saudi employers and therefore it shouldn't be broadcast as a serious problem is not very forcible, in my opinion. So long as any domestic workers are being abused and, just as importantly, are allowed to be abused by a fundamentally inadequate legal system, how can complacency be an option?
And, if anyone's interested, here is another little BBC article about the treatment of migrant laborers working outside the domestic sphere.
Your post and questions about a scandal made me thing a lot about the image of Saudi Arabia. It seems like they really want to maintain a good image, and in order to do so, they seem to ignore problems within the country. While this is very unfortunate for those who are victims of crimes in Saudi Arabia, it provides a great environment for black market trade. I wonder if Saudi Arabia has also been highly concerned with it's image. If it hasn't been, I'd be interested to know what caused image to become a priority, and if there has been a noticeable increase in black trade activities since then.
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling that image is connected to two things in Saudi Arabia. The first is religious conservatism and shame--puritanical Islamic beliefs set a low bar for what is and is not deemed "sinful". The second factor concerns the House of Saud and its ability to maintain control of the country. The royal princes and other elites are infamous for their excesses and I have no doubt that they are guilty in many of seedy activities like mistreatment of foreign servants, supporting “houses of ill repute”, etc. The underground economy may even line their coffers or at the very least the coffers of friends. But I think the royal family wants to cover up not only their own sins, but the general moral degradation of the country because the image of a sinless Saudi Arabia gives much-needed legitimacy to their undemocratic reign. I think it is a futile battle, however. According to the chapter we read, Saudi resentment is building against the profligate ruling family. I think the author of the book is likely right that if the Saudi monarchy is to survive and avoid the fate of the Shah of Iran, it will have to go the path of openness and reform.
ReplyDelete