CDHR's Analysis: Mired in palace quarrels over who will be the next king and how to counter the unprecedented Arab Uprising, the Saudi ruling family is mobilizing its most outspoken and influential agents to remind its captive population of the supremacy of Islamic values over the man-made rule of law. The Saudi ruling elites are not only concerned with democratic uprising in their country but more so with democratization of Arab and Muslim countries.

In a recent speech (see link below-in Arabic) at Cambridge University, former Saudi top spy and ambassador to the US and UK, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, gave an unusual speech to a mostly non-Muslim audience. He declared that paying Bayaa, or divine submission, in this case to absolute monarchs, is the equivalent of voting in free elections in a democratic society. He went on to cite a saying attributed to Prophet Mohammed: "Those who do not pay allegiance to the ruler cease to be part of us." Prince Turki was essentially implying that those who do not submit to the rule of the monarchy are heretics and therefore risk going to hell.

The prince proclaimed to his well-informed Cambridge audience that his country "is advancing and protecting men's and women's rights" and "that religious scholars, the Shurah council [appointed and powerless consultative council], the ruling family, tribal leaders, academic scholars, and businessmen are all part of the decision-making process in Saudi Arabia." This is a false assessment because Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Saudi Arabia has been ruled by an autocratic and theocratic government since the founding of the state in 1932. Foreign and domestic polices, as well as the State budget, are solely determined by the king and a few of his senior brothers. The public plays no part in the decision-making processes in Saudi Arabia.

The Washington-based Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, CDHR, has argued for years that the Saudi autocratic monarchy has used religion to justify its draconian policies domestically, regionally and globally. Prince Turki's speech bears testimony to his family's use of religion as a tool to maintain control over its country, people, and wealth. This argument is shared by most Saudis. One would think that an educated and experienced statesman like Prince Turki would know not to assume that his audiences in and out of Saudi Arabia are naïve about the absolutist nature of the Saudi regime.

During his speech, Prince Turki declared that his government's “overriding foreign policy is to avoid meddling in other countries' internal affairs.” This statement defies well-known facts.  The Saudi military presence in Bahrain, the harboring of the deposed Tunisian and Yemeni dictators, support for Hosni Mubarak to the bitter end, and support for the murderous Iraqi insurgents are facts that belie Prince Turki's assertions. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia supports NATO's operation in Libya, as well as Saad Hariri coalition in Lebanon—just to name a few instances of willful Saudi interference in other countries' internal affairs.

Prince Turki's claim that his government “is advancing men's and women's rights” contradicts the facts on the ground. Numerous accounts of gross violations of basic human rights in Saudi Arabia are well known and documented by credible human rights groups and government agencies, including the U.S. State Department. According to some Saudi rights activists and others, thousands of Saudi reformers and government opponents are languishing in Saudi prisons without charges or trials. In terms of women's rights, Saudi Arabia is the only country where women are prohibited from voting and driving. The overwhelming majority of women are denied the right to work, participate in sporting events, such as the Olympics, and travel without a male guardian.

The questions that interminably repeat themselves are: How long will the Saudi authorities keep insulting their voiceless people by giving disingenuous speeches, issuing hollow royal decrees, and invoking religion to silence their critics? How long will the regime assume that its people are ignorant of the realities they see and experience on a daily basis? How long before the regime realizes that the use of religion as a means to rule and oppress its people has outlived its usefulness? How long will the people remain silent?