Protecting the tribe : wahhabism, legitimation and family structure in Saudi Arabia

PROTECTING THE TRIBE:

WAHHABISM, LEGITIMATION AND FAMILY STRUCTURE IN SAUDI ARABIA

A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of Amsterdam in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree for Master of Science in the Department of Political Science,

International Relations

Author: Ingrid Brekke Holgersen, 11146338 Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 24 June 2016

Research project: Authoritarianism in a Global Age

MSc Political Science, Political Science: International Relations Supervisor: Emanuella Dalmasso

Second reader: Conny Roggeband

Abstract:

The establishment of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia is told through a tale of two women, one as an adulterer who threatened the Islamic state and one who embraced the teachings and allowed the continuity of the teachings. This thesis is examining the connection between state legitimation and violation of women’s rights regarding family and societal structures in Saudi Arabia. With fostering from feminist theory of the private being a reflection of the public and vice versa, it analysis how Saudi Arabia legitimises the repression of women. By using a report submitted by Saudi Arabia to the UN Committee of the Convention Against All Discrimination of Women (CEDAW), it inspects the language used to justify the repression of women. The analysis illustrates that because of the embedded tribal structures in Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom favours collective rights over individual rights. The Kingdom has strong patriarchal structures and for that reason, women become the most repressed. Religion is used as a tool to legitimise the reason for protecting these societal structures. Beside from the report submitted by Saudi Arabia, reports from the UN Human Right Council, Freedom House and the response by the CEDAW committee are used for the analysis. The topics of the analysis are issues surrounding private and family structures which are seen in the reports.

Table of Contents

5. Case study: Saudi Arabia: ... 11

5.1. Family structure in Saudi Arabia: ... 11 5.2. Religious nationalism and Wahhabi teachings: ... 13 6. Analysis: ... 15 6.1. CEDAW Report and restrictions made by Saudi Arabia: ... 16 6.1.1. Human Rights Council: ... 18 6.1.2. Freedom House: ... 18 6.2. Basic Law: ... 19 6.3. Male guardianship: ... 20 6.3.1. Male guardianship in the reports: ... 21 6.4. Freedom of movement: ... 23 6.5. Citizenship and marriage: ... 23 6.6. Child custody: ... 24 6.7. Violence: ... 25 6.8. Inheritance: ... 25 7. Conclusion: ... 26 Bibliography: ... 29

1. Introduction:

This research will focus on women’s rights in authoritarian regimes, and the case study will be Saudi Arabia. As women’s rights is a vast topic, the focus will be on features surrounding ‘family structures’. The reason for focusing on Saudi Arabia and family structures is that the Kingdom does not have a ‘family code’, a law which dictates the repression of women, instead it has a societal custom of male guardianship (Van Eijk 2010: 163). This makes Saudi Arabia a unique country to examine, to study how these customs, as well as religion, is connected to state legitimation. Another aspect which is unique for the Kingdom is the Wahhabi teachings, which are the foundation of the regime and used as justification for it (Commins 2006: 107-115). This is a distinctive and conservative branch of Islam and is also an aspect which makes Saudi Arabia unique. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy and has been ruled by the Saud family for close to a century. In this study, several reports will be analysed to answer the research question. The analysis will be conducted through content analysis. Attributes connected to family structures and religion such as Wahhabi and tribalism will be further elaborated. These will be linked to legitimation and feminist theory, especially the theory by Cynthia Enloe of the private being a reflection of the public and vice versa (Enloe 1990: 195). The Basic Law of the Kingdom, as well as the custom of male guardianship, will be examined in detail.

The research showed both expected as well as unexpected results. It was expected that the justification was based upon religion, which was proved to be correct. However, an aspect which was not anticipated was how language played a significant part in understanding the justification and the social structures of the Kingdom. This is clearly shown in the analysed report and gave a better understanding of the conception of family and marriage. These findings will further be elaborated upon in the analysis. I will argue that the repression of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia is the outcome of a real necessity of the Saudi regime to protect a specific structure of the society upon which its power is based. Religion is the tool used to legitimise this choice.

2. Methodology:

The analysis will be based on four different reports. A report submitted by Saudi Arabia to the CEDAW, the motive for choosing this specific report is to examine how Saudi Arabia legitimise the violation of women’s rights. It is not written by a third party, but rather it demonstrates the language used to legitimise the violation of women’s rights by the Kingdom. Second, the report by the CEDAW committee in response to the Saudi Arabian will follow, this is chosen because it is highly connected to the report submitted by Saudi Arabia and it illustrates the standpoint by the committee. The third is also connected to the UN, however, conducted on the behalf of the Human Rights Council and the author was invited to Saudi Arabia on an official visit. This is a relevant report as it is conducted by a highly recognised UN organ and based on an official visit. Lastly, I found the need for a report from an independent perspective and chose a report by Freedom House, also a highly recognised organisation. The main difference I witnessed between the reports was language, as Saudi Arabia used a completely different language than the three other reports and this will be further explained in the analysis. When researching for reports I first explored a report by Amnesty International, however coming across the report by the Human Rights Council, I found that of more relevance to my study. Since I found it vital to inspect women’s rights from different angles. After choosing the various reports, I explored diverse methods of analysing the selected reports. I found content analysis to be the best approach because of its multiple branches. I have found Maying’s 2014 theory to be particularly significant as it elaborates on three different analytical branches within the larger content analysis tree. First there is summarising analysis, whereas the focus is on decreasing the object of analysis and extract the necessary aspects of the object. This branch I will use in analysing the reports made by the Human Rights Council, as well as Freedom House. The second branch, which I did not find to be necessary to my analysis is explication, which is about increasing the text to gain a better understanding of it and adding terms and sentences to the analysis. The third branch, which I found essential to my research is structural content analysis. Structural content analysis is used to extract certain aspects of the text and to evaluate the text according to certain factors within the texts. An example of a factor may be language; I will analyse the language used by Saudi Arabia to legitimise the repression in the report submitted to the CEDAW (Mayring 2014: 64). Structural analysis will likewise to be utilised for the reports by Human Rights Council and Freedom House, this to study if the language differs from the language employed by Saudi Arabia.

I found these branches to be important for the reason that summarising content analysis gives the opportunity to extract the material in these reports which are of importance for my study, as there are large amounts of data that do not relate to family themes. Structural analysis gives me the ability to analyse the language used by the Kingdom to justify the repression used and to show how language is used as a tool by the Kingdom. This I found to be essential in my analysis and something I will further elaborate on as my argument progresses.

3. Previous literature:

The previous literature that is explored on women’s rights in the MENA (The Middle East and North Africa) region shows considerable differences. Two main branches stood out, the first portraying Islam as the cause of the repression against women and the second as a tool for repression. In this section of the research, these two branches will be explored, and flaws and gaps in the literature will be pointed out.

3.1. Women’s rights and Islam:

Firstly, I have looked at the literature which argues for Islam being the cause of the repression. M. Steven Fish conducted a study on authoritarianism, women’s rights and democracy in Islamic countries. His findings suggested that countries with a foundation based on Islamic traditions tend to be more autocratic than non-Islamic. On the basis of economic development, women’s condition tends to be worse in Islamic countries than others. His findings may have a sense of legitimacy in relation to Saudi Arabia, where women are excluded from a large variety of economic aspects of society and industry. He makes a limited connection between women’s rights and democracy and suggests that with fewer rights for women, the chance of democratic development is lessened. Lastly, he speculates that “Islamic states may be more autocratic so as to repress women’s rights more effectively, or autocratic government may permit and even require the repression of a range of human rights, including those of women.” (Fish in Dunno, Russett 2004: 582). Dunno and Russett use Fish’s analysis in further research on the topic. Their findings show the same results as Fish on the first two points, however, Arab countries are even more likely to suppress women’s rights and rule autocratically than other Islamic countries. They disagree with Fish on the connection between democratic development and the idea that women’s rights and female empowerment contribute to

democracy. Dunno and Russett finished their study by saying that there is a need for an explanation as to why some rights are more limited than others in authoritarian regimes and especially in Islamic Arab states (Dunno, Russett 2004: 583). This illustrates an approach which views Islam as the problem and the cause of the violation of women’s rights. The Saudi Arabian regime is legitimised through a particular branch of Islam, Wahhabism, and this is an aspect which is not evaluated in the studies shown by Dunno, Russett and Fish. There are however flaws in the theory as it does not examine a particular reason why Islam would be the cause of the repression.

3.2. Religion as legitimation:

Scholars such as David Commins show a different approach when studying Islam in the region. Through studying the specific branch of Islam in Saudi Arabia he displays Islam as not necessarily the cause of repression against the population, but a tool for furthering state legitimation. Regarding Wahhabi teachings, David Commins discusses the connection between the Saudi Arabian regime and the Wahhabi teachings in his book ‘The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia’. Wahhabism will be explored in greater depth at a later point in this analysis. In his book, he elaborates on the change, which occurred in the 1950s and the establishment of the modern Saudi state regarding the connection to Wahhabism. The government developed from just being strictly the royal family to including ministries and agencies, which covered fields of economic development, education, petroleum and finance. This he argues changed the structure of the state. Religion became incorporated into official political institutions, and the religious courts still uphold authority Commins 2006: 107-115). The juridical system is relatively new in Saudi Arabia, as the Basic Law, which is equivalent to a constitution, was not written until 1992 (Etrürk 2009: 5). Commins investigates Islam and modern Saudi Arabia from a different angle and points out the historical processes and how Saudi Arabia developed from a tribal society to a modern state. This is a feature which is not taken into consideration by other scholars who are portraying Islam as the sole cause of the repression against women. He illustrates the connection between Wahhabi teachings and state legitimation. Nonetheless, he does not elaborate on women’s rights and the gendered structures which exist in Saudi Arabia. This is, however, necessary in my opinion to properly investigate the connection between women’s rights and state legitimation.

3.3. Private is public:

Feminist scholars such as Al-Rasheed and Manea make the connection between religion and women’s rights. Madawi Al-Rasheed examines and analyses the current situation in Saudi Arabia in her book ‘A most masculine state: gender, politics and religion in Saudi Arabia’. She explains the foundation of the regime and the justification of the oppression against women. She describes it as religious nationalism, whereas the regime uses religion as a justification for the oppression. This is an aspect which through feminist theory and legitimation theory can explain the relationship between state legitimation and women’s oppression through family structures. At the same time, the regime also manages to create a form of nationalism, which help establish unity and loyalty to the royal family. She describes a patriarchal state and argues the transformation from a patriarchal private to a patriarchal public (Rasheed 2013: 7). Al-Rasheed uses a feminist approach when examining Saudi Arabia, its culture and history. She scans every aspect of the society in her study of the repression of women. However, the theory might be useful, when not combined with legitimation theory, it does not provide a foundation to explore the relationship between family structures and state legitimation. Nevertheless, her approach is of strong importance because several indicators are used when examining reasons for the repression of women by the regime.

Elham Manea shares the feminist approach when studying the different rights of women in Arab states. She focuses on the private vs. the public rights of women. She uses Syria and Yemen as case studies to support her argument of the MENA region’s lack of legitimacy; demonstrating the precise role of gender politics in maintaining the survival and power of the elite. She argues that the authoritarianism of the Arab world explains its logic through conducting gender politics (Manea 2012: 3). This is a different tactic of analysis than the other approaches; here she recognises the gendered structures within a society, and this is essential as Saudi Arabia is based on tribal structures. The gendered approach is visible in feminism in international relations; Cynthia Enloe explains how society is built upon gendered structures and uses the same focus on the public vs. private (Enloe 1990: 195). Al-Rasheed in her book touches upon a significant amount of the topics, which are analysed in this research; however, her focus is on the concept of gender in much more detail. The gender question is explored in all parts of Saudi Arabian culture and history, while legitimation is mentioned, the large focus is regarding gendered structures. There are flaws in the literature, the literature with a focus on Islam as the cause does not take religion as a tool into consideration. Commins, whom examines Saudi Arabia from a point of view where regime legitimation is based upon religion

does not explore the repression of women’s rights. The feminist literature assembles a connection between state legitimation connected to religion and women’s rights, however with the methodology chosen for this research, I will be able to add to the literature. I will produce an addition to the literature by exploring the language used in the analysed reports. The importance of the usage of reports is that the legitimation of the repression is seen in these reports. The language Saudi Arabia uses to legitimise is not a part of previous study, and this is an important tool in understanding the legitimation from the point of view of Saudi Arabia. The reason for its importance is that it examines much more carefully how Saudi Arabia legitimises the repression of women to an international organ as well as how international organisations portray Saudi Arabia in their reports.

4. Theoretical approach:

The theoretical approach will be based on a combination of feminist theory and legitimation theory. The reason for this is to examine the relation between Saudi Arabia’s legitimation and the violation of women’s rights. The connection between these theories lies in the idea of structure. The structure of legitimation, as well as the structure of gender-based institutions. My reason for using these approaches is that feminism argues for gendered structures and the theory of the private being public and vice versa.

German political scientist Max Weber developed a theory on state legitimation. Legitimation is based directly on the populations belief system and directly participates in state authority and stability (Weber in Bendix 1977: 294). The theory is centred on three accounts of legitimation. These described as legal authority, which mostly occurs in democracies where the leading power is elected by the population. Charismatic authority, where the leader shares charismatic qualities and aspects such as tradition and legality do not have much impact on the legitimation of the leader. The third and most relevant to Saudi Arabia is, traditional authority. The theory states that power is usually inherited, and the authority is accepted because of tradition and history. If the ruling power has had power for a long time, this creates legitimation (Bendix 1977: 295). Saudi Arabia has a system based on inherited power, and the regime is legitimised on tradition based on religion.

Gilley defines legitimation and argues for his definition by saying that “A state is more legitimate the more that it is treated by its citizens as rightfully holding and exercising political

power. This definition contains within it all the substantive elements of the concept itself. It takes all citizens in a state as being the relevant subjects of legitimacy. It takes the state (defined as both processes and institutions as well as norms and ideologies) and how it holds and exercises political power as the relevant object. It takes legitimacy to be a continuous variable, that is, one which admits of degrees. It considers the measurement of legitimacy to depend upon various dimensions of "treatment" by citizens, attitudinal and behavioural, rather than claims by rulers or determinations by outside observers. Last and most important, it embeds the normative orientation of this form of political support into the definition by its use of the term "rightful."” (Gilley 2006: 48). Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, which has a theocratic rule, and according to Burnell (2006) establishes legitimacy based on clerics (Burnell 2006: 548).

Feminist political theory is valuable to use when examining women’s rights and then especially family structures. Feminist scholars such as Cynthia Enloe have produced the theory of the private is public and vice versa (Enloe 1990: 195). With this bold statement, she states that the ways in which women are represented in everyday life reflect not only on the public domestic sphere, but also the international. She explains that ‘gender makes the world go round’, this is clarified as meaning “That normalization is a political process that is driven— not entirely, but in large part—by assumptions of politics and decisions around masculinity and femininity, and that's what we mean by ‘makes the world go round.’” (Enloe, theory talks p 6). This gender theory will be related to legitimation theory of the Saudi Arabian regime and with that is included Wahhabi teachings. Enloe additionally introduces structure concerning gender and legitimation in her work. She describes how gender is structured, and these structures are legitimised by regimes by naturalising them. When the population believes they are natural they become accepted (Enloe theory talks p 6). These structures relate to the private is public and vice versa because they exist in every aspect of society and are easily recognisable in family structures. This theory is also seen in Elham Manea’s work as well as Al-Rasheed. This can be easily connected to gendered laws in Saudi Arabia and then especially the difference between societal structures and for example the right to education. Feminist theory also gives the opportunity to examine the case from a gendered perspective, not only from an authoritarian theory. Based on these different elements in the literature, I ask the following research question: How does repression of women’s rights contribute to regime legitimation in Saudi Arabia?

5. Case study: Saudi Arabia:

The case study of this thesis is on Saudi Arabia, because of the country’s obedience to the particular Wahhabi teachings, it is an appealing case study for examining the connection between legitimation and the repression of women’s rights. As mentioned it was suspected that there would be a connection to religion and that became a motive for choosing Saudi Arabia. As explained feminist theory is used, which argues for the private being a reflection of the public and vice versa. For that reason, it is crucial to inspect how the private is structured in Saudi Arabia. Comprehending this can begin to give an understanding of where the root of the violation of women’s rights are. The neglect of women’s rights is seen to be heavily based on the private sphere, and this chapter will study the concepts surrounding the private sphere in Saudi Arabia. This includes family structure, which is shown to be comprehensively based on historical tribal structures, the Wahhabi teachings and religious nationalism. Other countries in the region have a ‘family code’ or ‘family law’, whereas private structures involving women are a part of the general law (Charrad 2001: 6). This is not the case in Saudi Arabia, where these features are instead based on social norms and customs. This is a distinctive element which separates Saudi Arabia from the rest of the region regarding the repression of women. Therefore, examining the societal structures and religion is of great importance in answering the research question.

5.1. Family structure in Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia by Al-Rasheed and Commins is described as a modern state which has strong roots in tribal culture (Al-Rasheed 2013: 26) (Commins 2006: 8). The effect tribal culture has on Saudi Arabia reflects upon the culture surrounding family structures. This is an essential feature to recognise when examining the connection between legitimation and family structures. A question to be asked is how these societal structures within tribalism are connected to state legitimation and what this means for family structures. Yakin Ertürk talks in the report produced on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council about how the modern Saudi state developed from several tribal amirs under the leadership by Ibn Saud, and how the Saud family is still governing the country (Human Rights Council 2009: 4). According to Al-Rasheed, there is a difference between Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region regarding tribalism being incorporated into state functions. Saudi Arabia is the only country where religious nationalism is incorporated into state functions (Al-Rasheed 2013: 27). Religious

nationalism will be further elaborated on and is seen as a strong feature in the connection between state legitimation and the violation of women’s rights. This will be explained in an upcoming section. The Saudi society has a social hierarchy, a divide between tribal and non-tribal, where the tribal is the most desirable. An interesting aspect, which Nadav Samin points out is that with women gaining more influence in the public sphere, the private and institutional agencies have strengthened (Samin 2012: 115). Here the tribal hierarchy is protected, and the influence these historical arrangements have are clearly visible and of large importance in modern Saudi Arabian culture. This shows how the public and private is connected, and the visible freedom does not necessarily reflect upon a woman’s freedom as a whole. By protecting tribal patriarchy and the naturalised structures, it also protects the rights of the ‘community’. Therefore, not only protecting male relatives and giving them the power to monitor the female population, but also choosing to shield and keep the protection of the tribal controlling element. Al-Rasheed, when examining the historical structures of Saudi Arabia with the aim of understanding the repression against women, points out the structures as many other states in the region are also based on tribal culture. It is recognisable that the combination of tribal structure and state structures has a large impact on the violation of women’s rights. Examples of traces of tribalism in Saudi Arabia are the structures of patriarchy endogamy (Al-Rasheed 2013: 26). Tribal endogamy or marital compatibility, which is known as Kafāʾa explains the institution of marriage in Saudi Arabia, and how marriage is also an important political and power tool (Samin 2012: 109). Nadav Samin in his article ‘Kafāʾa fī l-Nasab in Saudi Arabia: Islamic Law, Tribal Custom, and Social Change’ discusses how the tribal culture in Saudi Arabia affects marriage. He argues that the tradition is in transition because women are participating more in the public sphere, however still recognises how embedded it is in the Saudi Arabian culture (Samin 2012: 110). De Bellefonds in Samin suggests that Kafāʾa was a creation based on protecting patriarchy and the freedoms of male relatives controlling women (Samin 2012: 110). If the private is public, this has great relevance in understanding the Saudi Arabian structures. It is an element which shows the importance of the tribal culture and the patriarchal society and the function of marriage. Still there is a large distinction between men and women, women are not allowed to ‘marry down’, however, the same restriction does not concern men (Samin 2012: 111). It is to be mentioned that the courts make the final decision whether marriages should be resolved based on the decisions made by male relatives (Samin 2012: 111). Since there is not a law which dictates family structures, it is, therefore, visible how the tribal culture influences the courts and the defence of the tribal hierarchy.

However, it must be recognised that Kafāʾa not only puts restrains on women, it also takes away a man’s identity and his opportunity to marry freely by choice (Samin 2012: 115). As tribalism also puts restrains on men, regarding marriage, Saudi Arabian is still a tribal society as a whole and by tradition a patriarchal society. What eventually marriage becomes in Saudi Arabia is a struggle for power and wealth and most of all status in society. In that sense marriage in tribal culture is about social position and not the Western conception of marriage and family (Samin 2012: 118).

Samin argues that the connection between arranged marriage and state structures has become a state ideology, “In the hands of the ruling Āl Saud, this narrative has now been generalized as an ideology of state, and citizens of a certain customary rank have often little choice but to accede to the demands of this newly reconstituted Good” (Samin 2012: 122). “Al-Jeraysī concluded that tribal chauvinism is a class of discrimination like any other and is completely at odds with the two pillars of the Saudi national project — religion and national inclusiveness” (Samin 2012: 118). The question then turns out to be how can these highly embedded and traditional structures be questioned? When these structures have become a state ideology, it becomes obvious that they have a large impact on state legitimation, and it is of great importance for the state to protect tribal patriarchy.

Tribal culture is connected to the whole region and exists in several countries with Islamic tradition; an example is drawn from Mounira Charrad, which has a focus on the establishment of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. “The choices embodied in each new Code of Personal Status or Family Code were an outcome of the structure of political power in each society. More precisely, they were shaped by the extent to which the newly formed state derived its support from political forces tied to tribes or kin groupings and by the place that the leadership intended to give to kin-based solidarities in the future society” (Charrad 2001: 6). Apart from the fact that Saudi Arabia does not have a family code embedded into their legal system, the societal structures can relate to these countries. Since Saudi Arabia does not have a family code, it becomes even more unique, and tribal culture and these embedded societal structures are even more essential in society.

5.2. Religious nationalism and Wahhabi teachings:

Madawi Al-Rasheed introduces religious nationalism concerning women in Saudi Arabia. She elaborates on how this nationalism is the foundation of the legitimation of the Saudi regime

and the legitimation of the repression of women. Religious nationalism is based on Wahhabi teachings and not only sharia. Al-Rasheed frames the legitimation as being created by, in plain words a manipulation of public Islam by the state, “enforced by Wahhabi teachings and scholars, to create a legitimacy and a rationale for the foundation of a pious nation” (Al-Rasheed 2013: 51). The state could be seen to have managed therefore to create nationalism trough the linkage of religion. It is important to remember that Saudi Arabia was before the rule of the Saud family a divided country based on tribes. It was, therefore, crucial for the regime to find an aspect which united these tribes. Religion was a result of this which came together with the societal structures which heavily repressed women. These societal and religious structures were already embedded into the tribal culture (Cummins 2006: 104). Wahhabism managed to combine public and private piety, and this transformation managed to foster the legitimation and authority of the state. In that sense, religious nationalism was created as a result of the transformation (Al-Rasheed 2013: 51-52).

The establishment of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia is explained trough a tale of two women, one as an adulterer who threatened the Islamic state and one who embraced the teachings and allowed the continuity of the teachings. This creates strong gender roles and a gender separation of how women are portrayed trough the teachings. Fear of female power was established, and it is distributed through the state, Al-Rasheed argues that the fear has shaped Saudi policy in a much larger extent than other religious countries (Al-Rasheed 2013: 57). Wahhabism comes from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, an Islamic scholar, who in the 1740s met with Muhammad Al Saud in current Saudi Arabia. His teachings focused on the mission against unbelief and idolatry. Al Saud pledged his allegiance to the scholar, and this became the start of the current rule in Saudi Arabia (Commins 2006: 19). This is an aspect to draw attention to for the reason that Wahhabi became the linkage that united the tribes. The foundational characteristic of the teachings was heavily based on not only shaming women, but also constructing women as second class citizens. Ertürk shortly elaborated on the Wahhabi teachings as they are a distinct interpretation of Islamic Law and unique for Saudi Arabia. A branch which is in some cases seen as the most conservative interpretation and which appreciates authority in a larger sense than other branches (Human Rights Council 2010: 4). David Cummins wrote the book The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, where he gives details on every aspect of the religious teachings. Most importantly the foundation of the modern state is clarified. As explained Al Saud united the country and created a basis on religious nationalism. With the enormous petroleum wealth and resources, the successors of Al Saud inaugurated several governmental institutions. This is elaborated upon by Cummins

when he states that, “Nevertheless, the evolution of forms of governance from ad hoc to regular structures did affect the ways that Wahhabism operated in Saudi society. The process established Wahhabi civil servants in government agencies, and while that might have placed them under official authority, it also supplied them with funds to hire staff and resources to amplify their message. Furthermore, the kingdom’s unification through modern communications and transportation and the proliferation of national administrative bodies expanded Wahhabism’s reach deeper into Saudi society” (Cummins 2006: 105). This has a strong effect on the connection between legitimation and family structures, in the sense that the regime managed to incorporate Wahhabism into modern governmental institutions and created a religious nationalism. The regime legitimised not only the Wahhabi teachings, but most importantly the already embedded societal structures, which has a strong affect on women’s lives, into governmental institutions.

6. Analysis:

The analysed documents are a combination of official UN reports and an independent report conducted by an NGO. The CEDAW report and policy was chosen for the reason that it shows the justification by Saudi Arabia and the country gives an explanation for the violation of women’s rights. The report conducted on behalf of the Human Rights Council is of importance because it is a UN organ, based on an official visit and has widespread creditability. Lastly, the Freedom House report was chosen to represent findings from an independent organisation; this is a report which uses a more direct language and is additionally more opinionated than the others. I would argue that there is a need for reports for different usage, and a balance of various reports gives a broader understanding and provides the basis for a better analysis. The report produced by Saudi Arabia is of a different category than the others. As it is a report where Saudi Arabia legitimises the violation of women’s rights, the others examine Saudi Arabia from the outside, with international criteria, and so complement each other. The analysis will be reviewed by topics which are discriminative against women in family structures. The reports will firstly be introduced and further analysed by subject. Male guardianship and the Basic Law by Saudi Arabia are the first topics to be explained, as these are exceptional to Saudi Arabia. Male guardianship is a unique aspect and is connected to all aspects of the repression against women in the Kingdom. I have decided to eliminate the parts of the reports which are not relevant to the study, therefore not the entire reports are analysed. For that reason, the

subdivision of content analysis explained by Mayring (2014), summarising content analysis is used.

The most important aspect, however, about the different reports is language. As explained, Saudi Arabia is a kingdom based on tribal structures. The Basic Law was only established in 1992, and this will be elaborated upon further in an upcoming section (Human Rights Council 2009: 5). With tribal culture, the collective becomes the highest concern. The language Saudi Arabia uses in its report reflects upon these societal customs, the collective coming before the individual. The language employed by the other reports conversely is the protection of the individual. With this usage of language, Saudi Arabia justifies the repression of women, not only on the grounds of religion, but also family. Family meaning in the Saudi societal structures, also the tribe. Saudi Arabia elaborates on a definition of family and its importance in society; “It is by means of the complementary relationship between man and woman that the family, which represents the basic building block of Muslim society and civilization as a whole, is built. Accordingly, Islam affirms many values which promote the family, which is not limited to husband and wife but extends to include children, siblings, parents and relatives” (Saudi Arabia 2008: 11).

The language used by the regime showed a clear association between the tribal structures and regime legitimation. Legitimation regarding Saudi Arabia proves how the regime must stay authentic to religion, and then especially to Wahhabi. Structures become legitimised when they become natural for the population, and since the legitimation is related to religion, these structures become difficult to break down. For that reason, the report from Saudi Arabia demonstrates how Saudi Arabia legitimises itself and most importantly the chosen language used by the Kingdom. The language shown by the independent reports is a language with a strong focus on the individual, whereas the emphasis is not on the collective. Language is proved to have an entirely different meaning in the independent reports and this is contradictory to the report submitted by Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia 2008, Freedom House 2010, Human Rights Council 2009).

6.1. CEDAW Report and restrictions made by Saudi Arabia:

The Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty developed by the United Nations in 1979. The treaty has been ratified by 189 member states; however, some states have made several restrictions to some of the articles (UN 2016). Saudi Arabia has made restrictions on paragraph 2 of article 9 and

paragraph 1 of article 29. Article 9 concerns the nationality of a woman’s children; in the case of Saudi Arabia, the children of only a female Saudi do not fulfil the requirements needed for Saudi citizenship. Article 29 is controversial in the sense that it states, if two or more state parties cannot agree on the terms of the convention it can be referred to the international court of justice. In response to the report by Saudi Arabia, the committee highly encouraged the Kingdom to withdraw the restrictions, as they are of vast importance to the rights of women (CEDAW 2008: 10). The treaty has several articles which have a focus on family structures; these are specifically relevant when examining family structures in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention in 2000 and submitted its first report to the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Committee in march 2007 and the fortieth session was held in February 2008 (Saudi Arabia 2008).

The response to the first article of the policy is exceptional because it gives the justification of the regime and the collective language is vastly present. Article 1 states of the policy “For the purposes of the present Convention, the term ‘discrimination against women’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, regardless of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” (Saudi Arabia 2008: 11).

Saudi Arabia includes The Basic Law in response to Article 1; however, this is not of relevance as a family law does not exist in Saudi Arabia. Male guardianship, a social custom is what controls women, not the actual constitution. Saudi Arabia explains the building block of a Muslim society is the family, and includes the family as being children, siblings, parents and relatives. It is argued that Islam encourages the values which uphold the family, and these values include family piety and the bond of kinship. It is added that this is an aspect, which is more favourable to women than to men, it is more favourable for women than for men to protect the collective structure. Saudi Arabia justifies the gendered structure by scientific evidence of psychological differences between the sexes. This is related to the interpretation of Islam and explains the roles of men as providers and women as conceivers, child bearers and mothers. Further in response to article 1, the difference in inheritance is elaborated on, where the justification is again based upon Islam. Because the man is held as being the provider, women receive less inheritance than their male counterparts, Saudi Arabia argues that this is favourable for a woman as she is not concerned with providing for herself. This is a feature, which takes away a woman’s possibility of providing for herself by choice (Saudi Arabia 2008: 11).

There is no distinction between the public, and the private domains is described by the Kingdom and men and women moves along both domains. Women move along both domains in the interests of the family and society. The family is therefore seen to be of highest importance, not the individual. About the public and private domain Saudi Arabia states “Furthermore, the values governing the public domain are those which govern the private” (Saudi Arabia 2008: 12). This phrase is contradictory for the reason that the aspects of family structures which exist in Saudi Arabia are not issued by law, instead by societal structures and customs. The laws and rights which exist are only available for women through the approval of a male guardian. This defence does not increase legitimacy because women have to have a male guardian and are only permitted to move across these domains with the permission of this male guardian (Saudi Arabia 2008: 12). The CEDAW committee questions the language used by Saudi Arabia to explain equality, as the Kingdom implies similar rights for men and women as well as ‘harmony’ between the sexes. The committee argues that is not equivalent to equal rights of men and women (CEDAW 2008: 3).

6.1.1. Human Rights Council:

Yakin Etrürk produced a report based on his findings resulting from an official visit to Saudi Arabia in 2009 on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council. His findings are similar to those of CEDAW and Freedom House; however, it must be recognised that his procedure is different because he was on an official visit representing a UN organ, not a non-governmental organisation. Etrürk refers to the CEDAW report submitted by Saudi Arabia. He questions the language used by Saudi Arabia and refers to other reports submitted by Saudi Arabia to UN institutions, which contain similar language. The issue with the language which most concerns Ertürk is how it does not clearly show how committed Saudi Arabia is to upholding the standards expected by international organisations, of which the state is a member. Saudi Arabian officials, however, verified that there was no inconsistency between the Convention and Islamic law according to Ertürk (Human Rights Watch 2009: 6).

6.1.2. Freedom House:

In 2010 Eleanor Abdella Doumato published a report on women’s rights in Saudi Arabia by Freedom House. The report goes into depth on the repression of women in family structures. It describes The Basic Law of Saudi Arabia as unequal by nature, and that through this law

inequality remains at the foundation of all social and juridical structures. These structures have been naturalised and in that sense legitimised by the people. The report specifies family structures including how men can take up to several wives, is entitled to a divorce and will receive custody of the children. However, changes might be happening, court reforms with specialisation in family law, as well as court staff educated in family law and female lawyers to represent the women may be implemented (Freedom House 2010: 1-2). The separation between men and women still makes this a challenge. Family structures are presented under non-discrimination and access to justice in the report. Freedom House shares their biggest concern with the CEDAW committee, which is male guardianship (mahram). Article 8 of the Basic Law explains that the government must rule according to Sharia and Islamic law, on that premise the population must obey the government (Freedom House 2010: 3). In using the legitimation theory, the state will keep its legitimation as long as the population believe it rules according to sharia. If this changes, the government may lose its legitimation and may be eventually overthrown by the population. Freedom House criticises the treatment women receive in the country and argues that the system of the state does not work efficiently enough to prevent and protect the victims of discrimination. This is especially visible regarding the authority of the religious police, who have the authority to accuse and detain subjects however they may wish. It is argued in the report that Saudi Arabia is a hierarchical society in every sense, this is shown especially in the separation of men and women (Freedom House 2010: 3). An aspect of the CEDAW report presented by Saudi Arabia which draws attention by Freedom House is the reservations made by Saudi Arabia. “Dr. Musfir al-Qahtani, deputy of the Saudi National Society of Human Rights, responded by saying that laws related to marriage, inheritance, and women’s testimony – examples cited by the committee as discriminatory – are fixed by religious law, and are, by implication, non-negotiable” (Freedom House 2010: 6). Here it is seen how legitimation is connected to family structures and how necessary it is for the state to maintain these restrictions upon women to uphold legitimation.

6.2. Basic Law:

The Basic Law and the Law on the Consultative Council (Shura) was issued in 1992, which is governed by a council of 150 men appointed by the King (Human Rights Council 2009: 5). The Basic Law states “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a fully sovereign Arab Islamic State. Its religion shall be Islam and its constitution shall be the Book of God and the Sunna of His Messenger ...” (CEDAW 2008: 10). Saudi Arabia commences the CEDAW report by stating

that the Kingdom is obliged to follow Sharia law as a legislative authority and this cannot be contradictory to the convention. Saudi Arabia in its report uses article 10 of The Basic Law to give an explanation of the equality which is found in The Basic Law. Article 10 “stipulates that the State shall endeavour to strengthen family bonds, care for all its members and provide conditions conducive to the development of their talents and abilities;” (Saudi Arabia 2008: 12). Article 10 about women’s rights does not address women; however, it addresses the family. Examining the article concerning the tribal structures of the society, it shows how the collective is preferred and the rights of the individual are seen as secondary.

6.3. Male guardianship:

As previously mentioned, family structures are visible aspects of the law in many MENA countries. This is not the case in Saudi Arabia, where ‘family law’ is not a part of the general law and is rather based on societal structures and religious courts, this is what makes Saudi Arabia unique. However, it is significant to take the concept of ‘family law’ into consideration when examining legitimation concerning structures involving ‘family law’ in the Kingdom. Many of the issues that come under ‘family law’ in a number of these countries likewise exist in Saudi Arabia, however are not included in the general law. Esther Van Eijk wrote an article on the law in Saudi Arabia that examines family structures. “The Saudi personal and family law is not codified or compiled in a law code. All cases concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, and the status of children fall under the general jurisdiction of the shari‘a courts. For the most part judges of these courts resort to the Hanbali fiqh books when adjudicating a case; they can, however, also consult books from the other schools of law” (Van Eijk 2010: 163). What Saudi Arabia has instead is male guardianship, this is a societal custom which is enforced by the religious courts. Male guardianship puts large restraints on women as it affects freedom of movement, representation in courts as well as custody aspects. Consequently, Saudi Arabia can furthermore argue that the constitution is not unequal, an argument is seen in the CEDAW report (Saudi Arabia 2008: 7). The societal customs of the Kingdom implement the inequality of the society in the form of male guardianship. A noteworthy point is that male guardianship is not addressed by Saudi Arabia in the CEDAW report (Saudi Arabia 2008). Saudi Arabia is exceptional in the MENA region because women cannot leave the home without the authorisation of a male guardian and cannot use public transport or travel on an airplane alone. The consequences of breaking these rules may contribute to domestic violence and stronger restrictions on leaving the home. This is usually seen as a family matter, and

government action is not taken. This creates a difficult situation for women, since if she goes to the courts and makes a complaint, it is unlikely to be socially accepted because it is seen as a family matter. As mentioned she is also in need of a guardian to represent her case in front of the courts, which makes it an even more difficult situation (Nazir 2006)1. These are all issues which are being addressed in the analysed reports. Women have the right to an education in Saudi Arabia, as well as health benefits, however in many cases, there is again the need for a male guardian’s approval. Sameena Nazir argues that Saudi Arabia is a patriarchal regime, with a strong male dominance, which does not support even the appearance of equality between the sexes (Nazir 2006). As long as the private life of a woman is controlled by patriarchy, she is also controlled by the regime and the societal structures within it.

6.3.1. Male guardianship in the reports:

In all the reports examined, except for the report by Saudi Arabia, male guardianship is highlighted as the main concern. Male guardianship (mehrem) is shown to be of great interest to the CEDAW committee, and this is also the largest issue within family structures regarding women’s rights. Saudi Arabia did not include the issue of male guardianship in its report, neither were they obliged as it is not a part of the Basic Law, however universally accepted in society. The CEDAW committee argues that it limits women’s rights under the convention, in particular in their legal capacity, personal status, marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, property ownership, residency, education, employment and any independent decision-making. It urged Saudi Arabia to end the practice of male guardianship. The committee recognises the societal structures and patriarchal customs which are embedded into society and calls the Kingdom to work consistently to end these practices (CEDAW 2008: 3). As explained these customs lay the foundation of the repression against women and are in that sense the highest level of control the regime has over women.

Another aspect which makes male guardianship problematic is domestic violence, which of course occurs. The Kingdom, as shown in the report has put resources into preventing domestic violence, however, because of guardianship women do not always have the opportunity to report the violence which occurs. This aspect is criticised by the committee as it identifies a lack of legislation, prosecution and punishment for domestic violence (CEDAW 2008) (Saudi Arabia 2008).

1 _{Report without page numbers}

The report produced on the behalf of the Human Rights Council also touches upon the area of male guardianship. The practice is assumed to derive from societal customs and is argued by the regime to protect women and religious principles in areas such as marriage and travel (Human Rights Council 2009: 10). Ertürk, the writer of the report, introduces women’s view on the practise, something which is not visible in the other reports. The women mentioned in his report have mixed views on the importance of the practise. Some women see the importance of it, they rationalise it, by arguing it is for their protection, and they enjoy how it “pampers Saudi women”. On the other side of the spectrum, women argue that it puts restraints on intellectual capabilities, values and freedom within the legal system as adults (Human Rights Council 2009: 11). This is a very particular and exciting point to take into consideration, because regardless of how the state may see the importance in protecting women’s rights, the view of the women itself is of most importance. Ertürk reiterates the restraints that male guardianship puts upon women, features such as autonomy, freedom of movement and of course legal ability about marriage, child custody, inheritance and control over ownership and property. Other issues included are decision-making in family matters, education and employment. Ertürk summaries it as a restraint on all issues related to a woman’s freedom (Human Rights Council 2009: 11). Male guardianship is not legalised and is a societal practise; however, there are some aspects which are regulated by law. The parts which are regulated are freedom of movement, which includes the highly controversial feature of women driving and decision-making regarding marriage and its dissolution. In other words, issues related to travel and legal matters (Human Rights Council 2009: 11). According to Saudi law, women technically have the right to go through a medical operation, open a business, own property, inherit and make decisions surrounding education. In practise, this is in many cases very different, under many circumstances, a woman will need the permission of her male guardian. Since this is a societal custom, it depends on the family and how they perceive the custom of male guardianship. Ertürk adds that a public Ipsos survey showed that 65 per cent of women and 66 per cent of men favoured allowing women to start and run businesses without the approval of a male guardian. This demonstrates a change in the public view of male guardianship (Human Rights Council 2009: 11). The Human Rights Council report includes lack of individual ID cards under the section on male guardianship; Freedom House chose to discuss this topic under child custody. Individual ID cards suit both topics, as it is relevant to juridical freedom, as well as male guardianship. In 2001 there was some progress in liberating women from male guardianship concerning ID cards, photo ID cards were finally issued. This, however, is still problematic, because women need approval of their male guardian to obtain

an ID card. Another challenging issue is that some women are unwilling to appear unveiled on a photographic ID card. ID cards mean that a woman becomes an ‘individual’ in the sense that she can participate in legal issues related to her. The main concern related to ID cards is that women cannot represent themselves or perform financial or administrative transactions without a guardian, and therefore women may be misrepresented in front of the courts (Human Rights Council 2009: 11).

6.4. Freedom of movement:

The lack of freedom of movement is referred to under ‘autonomy, security and freedom of the person’ in the Freedom House report. Freedom of movement is appealing when examining the legitimation of the regime. Both the legal constraints and societal control creates difficulties for the movement of women. A guardian’s permission is needed to travel on airplanes, work or leave their home, driving is also forbidden (Freedom House 2010: 7). Driving especially has gained controversy internationally, Freedom House in the report mentions that after the criticism by the CEDAW Saudi Arabia announced that by the end of 2008 a royal decree permitting women to drive would be issued (Freedom House 2010: 7-8). As of 2016 women are still prohibited to drive (Ramisetty-Mikler and Almakadma 2016).

6.5. Citizenship and marriage:

An aspect which is brought to attention, related to marriage is citizenship, if a Saudi woman marries a non-Saudi citizen, the process of acceptance is much more complicated than if a Saudi man marries a non-Saudi. The feature of divorce is strongly criticised by Freedom House, where there are large differences in the rights between men and women and takes a large part of the report. The case of divorce is seen as crucial regarding the freedom of women and therefore crucial in repression of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. If the marriage contract states that a woman is allowed to seek a divorce, which is a right granted by her husband, she can seek divorce by choice. A difficulty which may occur is that the religious courts may characterise it as a violation of Sharia and therefore not grant the woman a divorce (Freedom House 2010: 9-10). As previously stated a woman’s guardian plays a large role in the decision-making about a woman’s freedom. This includes marriage and divorce; the marriage contract requires different information from the husband and the wife. A woman must state if she is a virgin, widow or divorcee, the same is not required of men. Whether a woman can take part in

the decisions made on her behalf is a family matter and not governed by the Kingdom. As an example, Freedom House uses a case from 2009, where an eight-year-old girl was seeking a divorce from her fifty-year-old husband. The marriage was arranged by the girl’s father to settle old debt (Freedom House 2010: 9). This is an example of the embedded tribal structures which exist in Saudi society. Ertürk explains how forced marriages increase the risk of domestic abuse (Human Rights Council 2009: 15). The regulation regarding divorce also makes it difficult for women to flee abusive marriages (Human Rights Council 2009: 21). He uses an example of a divorcee, a woman who was forced to marry at age 14 after experiencing abuse from her brother. This abuse continued with her husband and after ten years she managed to obtain a divorce; however, she lost the custody of her four children to her husband (Human Rights Council 2009: 15).

6.6. Child custody:

A Reason, women might find it difficult to file for divorce is the legislation on child custody. A woman may keep custody of her children for girls until they reach the age of 7 and boys until 9, after that the father receives custody. In infrequent cases the woman may be granted physical custody; however, the father still obtains legal custody. What this means it that in all legal matters there is a need for the father’s consent (Human Rights Council 2009: 21). A non-Saudi woman divorcing her Saudi husband has an even worse chance in granting custody over her children than a Saudi woman (Human Rights Council 2009: 21). The societal regulation of dissolving marriages reflects on the tribal history of Saudi Arabia; the male guardian of a woman has the right to dissolve the marriage if it seems unfit. This may also be a male relative of the woman if they find her husband to be inadequate. This practice is characterised as ‘tribal incompatibility’ (Human Rights Council 2009: 15).

Another aspect, which relates to child custody is individual ID cards. Individual ID cards are also mentioned under the section of male guardianship; however, this feature of repression also suits the issue of child custody. Individual ID cards were not available to women before 2002; previously they were included in their guardian’s ID card. It was not until 2008 women were finally permitted to receive an ID card without the permission of a guardian. However, there are still some flaws to be acknowledged; some courts do not accept a woman’s ID as legitimate. The reason for this is that a woman’s face must be covered, and therefore her guardian must prove her identity in front of the court. Especially in child custody cases has this

shown to be problematic, where a woman needs her guardian, which is often both her husband and her legal adversary to represent her (Freedom House 2010).

6.7. Violence:

The report conducted by the Human Rights Council refers to domestic violence about forced marriage and divorce. Forced marriages often endanger women and in some cases girls. It must be emphasised that there is no minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia, so in some cases, young girls are seen as marriageable (Human Rights Council 2009: 15). The Saudi regime has taken some measures in fighting domestic violence. The National Programme for Family Safety (NPFS), a governmental programme was established to prevent violence, this using awareness-raising and setting up services for victims. Numerous of other measures has also taken place since the programme was set. However, from Ertürk’s study, there were some neglecting aspects of the programme. The way the committee dealt with domestic violence often restrained women from fleeing abusive relationships. The response by the officials was highly expected from conducting this study, “Officials underlined that the aim of of the committees was to preserve family unity rather than impose untimely changes on society” (Human Rights Council 2009: 19). This is an indication of the state’s priorities; the tribal collective is of more importance than the individual. An additional aspect is violence against herself and her children. The law does not state that women are not permitted to file a complaint, go to a police station or visit a health-care centre, it is a practice that differs. Unawareness is a reason for this, women are not alert of their rights in regard to guardianship and therefore not always report the abuse they experience (Human Rights Council 2009: 12).

6.8. Inheritance:

The Freedom House report deals with ideas around inheritance law in Saudi Arabia. Inheritance is fixed according to Sharia in Saudi Arabia. Women are entitled to half of the quantity assigned to a male relative, which is of the same distance from the deceased. In practise, for women, it is more challenging to be economically independent, and this is due to what Freedom House recognised to be a combination of societal customs which has been integrated into the Kingdom’s regulations by the administrators of the regulations (Freedom House 2010: 14).

7. Conclusion:

Even though Saudi Arabia is a regime based on traditional and historical structures, it is changing. Several of the reports demonstrated improvement and new societal development. This is changing the traditional status quo, and there are alterations being made to the historical structures. Ertürk identifies in the Human Rights Council report how there has been progress in the area of education among women. More women are now accepted to universities and receive higher education; however, he questions the culture regarding education. The culture that surrounds it, he identifies as a culture which prepares women for their “natural roles”, characterised as the stereotypical gender roles such as those of mothers and wives, and argues that this has not changed over the past 40 years (Human Rights Council 2009: 6). Education is absolutely the area where there has been the most progress, the literacy estimate for female youth (15-24) was 95,5 per cent in 2006. Another notable improvement concerning education and employment is that there are now joint medical schools and hospitals where women and men work side by side (Human Rights Council 2009: 7). Women are still excluded from certain math and science university programmes; however, women are now allowed to study law (Human Rights Council 2009: 8). There are however still difficulties for women practising law; this is due in large part to the ongoing prevalence of traditional structures and the religious legal system.

Regardless of the current changes, the regime still feels the need to protect and keep the traditional norms alive. Since the repression of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia is the outcome of a real necessity of the Saudi regime to protect a particular structure of the society upon which its power is based. Religion is the tool used to legitimise this choice. Drawing from feminist theory, Cynthia Enloe argues, societal structures become legitimate when they become naturalised. The tribal structures are highly embedded into society and as a result, they are not questioned. With Saudi Arabia being a regime which is legitimised trough tradition, religion and history, these societal structures play a large impact on state legitimation. Consequently, it is necessary to recognise that marriage has a different function in Saudi Arabia than to the West and so is difficult to compare. This becomes highly relevant when analysing women’s rights regarding family structures. It is relevant because of the naturalised nature of these family structures which help to explain the function marriage has within them, as marriage is also connected to societal status, political influence and economic power. Yet another characteristic of the protection of the tribe is seen of greater importance than the protection of women as an individual. By marrying within the tribe, economic and communal interests are established and

protected, and the patriarchal structures within the tribe are maintained. These are aspects which are of great importance to understanding how marriage is a structure which is also based on financial power and political influence.

My analysis aspired to an understanding of how Saudi Arabia has legitimised the repression of women and for that reason I chose the CEDAW report submitted by Saudi Arabia to analyse. When continuing the analysis of the other reports, one from the CEDAW committee, Human Rights Council and lastly Freedom House, an entirely different language became visible. This became an essential part of the analysis. Not only the particular usage of language, but also the subject of the language, which is seen as either the collective or the individual. In the report produced by Saudi Arabia, the subject is the collective, the family and the rights of a group as a whole. Male guardianship is not visible in the report. The other reports, however, emphasise the individual and women’s rights. Saudi Arabia is first and foremost devaluing individual rights in favour of collective rights because the regime’s power is based on a particular societal structure which privileges the collective. The legitimation of the regime rests upon the societal structures and religion is used as a tool to unite the Kingdom and to strengthen these traditional structures. The primary purpose of the regime is to protect the historically embedded tribal structures. The CEDAW committee address the language used by Saudi Arabia. The committee is concerned that the Kingdom lack an understanding of equality and the lack of the use of the word is also significant, as ‘harmony’ is not recognised as the same as equal rights for men and women. It is acknowledged that articles of the Basic Law guaranteed equality, on the other hand, neither the constitution or the legislative body represent equality of the sexes (CEDAW 2008).

The analysis highlighted how their lack of freedom makes Saudi women into second class citizens. Enloe’s argument of the private reflecting on the public and vice versa can relate in the sense that women in the public sphere are officially second class citizens and therefore their position in the private sphere is of the same importance.

Another interesting aspect discovered during my analysis was that women are denied the right to interpret religious texts, this can be connected to regime legitimation and paternal control over female citizens (Nazir 2006). It is attractive for the reason that legitimation of the state was firmly related to religion and in denying women the opportunity to participate or have any say in decision-making in their lives. Legitimation of the state is a mechanism of control and it makes it very easy for the regime to control a significant amount of the population, as well as not letting women question the legitimacy of the repression. Of all the aspects of family structures, interpretation of religious texts is a fascinating feature in the case of regime

legitimation. Women are not allowed to question the establishment which forces them to become second class citizens.

As previously mentioned what makes Saudi Arabia unique is that there is no codified law, the repression is based on societal structures, and therefore reform becomes more problematic. These structures are crucial for the regime to uphold regime legitimation. In other countries in the region, reform is a possibility because there is a codified family law. Women, therefore, have the opportunity to demand or fight for a reform of the law. The ruling power in Saudi Arabia are the religious courts, and these are also a part of the tribal and societal structures that are protected by the regime.

Bibliography:

Al-Rasheed, Madawi. A Most Masculine State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print.

Bellin, Eva. "Reconsidering The Robustness Of Authoritarianism In The Middle East: Lessons From The Arab Spring". Comp Politics 44.2 (2012): 127-149. Web.

Bendix, Reinhard. Max Weber. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. Print.

Burnell, Peter. "Autocratic Opening To Democracy: Why Legitimacy Matters". Third World Quarterly 27.4 (2006): 545-562. Web.

Commins, David Dean. The Wahhabi Mission And Saudi Arabia. London: I.B. Tauris, 2006. Print.

"Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Discrimination Against Women".

Un.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 05.05. 2016 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

Donno, Daniela, and Bruce Russett. "Islam, Authoritarianism, And Female Empowerment: What Are The Linkages?". World Pol. 56.04 (2004): 582-607. Web.

Enloe, Cynthia. 1990. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Freedom House, Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa 2010 - Saudi

Arabia, 3 March 2010, available at:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b99011da0.html [accessed 10 April 2016]

Gilley, B. "The Determinants Of State Legitimacy: Results For 72 Countries". International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science politique 27.1 (2006): 47-71. Web