The use of language can be fascinating. For years, the Western media referred to Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive totalitarian regimes in the world, as "moderate." Now comes this report on the death of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Sultan, from today's (October 22) Washington Post:
"It is possible the king will for the first time put the decision of his heir to the Allegiance Council, a body Abdullah created a decade ago as one of his reforms, made up of his brothers and nephews with a mandate to determine the succession."
We must be well into the era of relativity when a "reform" is having one's family members decide who gets to step up into first place in the line of succession. And, as the article mentions a few paragraphs down, in this instance one person decides if the council actually will be used to select the new Crown Prince. And that decision is up to. . . . .surprise!. . . . .the King! Now, that's "reform."
What was the motivation for this radical reform? As the Post explains: "Abdullah formed the council in order to modernize the process and give a wider voice to the choice."
Allowing your brothers and nephews in on the decision sure is modern and it sure brings in a wide diversity of voices.
Just in case anyone got the idea that the Sultan or his late father, King Abdul-Aziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia, were lazy while ruling their nation, the Post reports that the King had "over 40 sons by multiple wives" and that Sultan is "survived by 32 children from multiple wives."
It's a wonder that anyone had any time to implement "reforms."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment