While preparing for leading the class discussion this week, my partner broke the news to me: Saudi women will have the right to vote and run for local office in the next election (2015). Of course, my first question was: Are they allowed to drive? And to my surprise, the answer was ‘no’, Saudi women still do not have the right to drive. This brought to mind our discussion of practical and strategic gender needs. In one of our readings for class this week, the author highlighted the difference between the two, explaining that practical gender needs/interests “are usually a response to immediate perceived need and they do not generally entail a strategic goal such as women’s emancipation or gender equality” (Molyneux 1985, p. 232 as cited by Kabeer 1994 p. 90). In most cases, development practitioners have tried to address practical gender needs before moving on to strategic gender needs. This is because, it is usually easier to “address the concrete conditions of women’s daily lives” – PGN, before seeking to “transform women’s position within a structurally unequal set of social relations” – SGN (Kabeer 1994, p. 90).
As I understand it, the right to drive is more of a practical gender need and the right to vote is a strategic gender need. Therefore, it is hard to understand why the Saudi king chose to grant a strategic gender need before addressing the practical gender. On the face of it, this is a serious victory for women’s rights in a notoriously ultra-conservative (read patriarchal hegemonic) kingdom. However, I believe it is more of a strategic move on the part of the king. Remember, Saudi Arabia is part of a region that has been rocked by protests in what is being called the ‘Arab Spring’. While the women are unlikely to start bearing arms and calling for a violent overthrow of the king, there have been recent protests by women who have filmed themselves driving, although they are not allowed to do so. That might have served as a wake-up call to the king, highlighting that there is some level of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. So in an effort to appease feminists who have been arguing for the rights of women, King Abdullah has granted them one of the most important rights – the right to vote. Although he has announced this granting of a strategic gender need, he is also doing it on his terms. By making this announcement 4 years before it will come into effect, he is giving his country time to adjust to the idea of women voting and running for office and to make the necessary arrangements – like meeting women’s practical need to drive to the polling station. Hopefully, this will be addressed before 2015!!!
I have been thinking the same thing about the new voting announcement. I am not sure if you heard, but I read on BBC today that a woman in Saudi Arabia was just convicted of driving and given 10 lashes as a punishment. This article was published only TWO days after the voting news. When I sat down to think about it, I came up with two realizations. The first being that perhaps the leaders are really trying to give more rights and recognition to their forgotten population. Maybe granting the right to vote was just to get the ball rolling in the country as it is such a monumental event and it was sure to get the attention of people in Saudi Arabia as well as the world. But, my second thought was that the announcement seems somewhat strange. Women will have the right to vote in 2015, four years from now. Perhaps this was a ploy to make it seem like the country was trying so western pressure will be lifted while all along they plan on not following through with their word if there is upheaval from the men in the country. Four years is a long ways away, perhaps the idea is to really make a change and move towards allowing women to drive to the polls in 2015 and other changes…but I am really skeptical.
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing up this issue in the class's discussion today. In theory, granting women the right to vote means that Saudi Arabia is meeting the strategic gender needs (SGN). However, in fact, I think it is a manipulating action in response to international pressure and critique of gender violation in this country. On the other hand, the newly released decree of King Abdullah helps soothe the heating protests followed by the Arab Spring. So, the decree is really meant “kill two birds with one stone”. The WID/WAD/GAD approaches also raised a huge debate over issues of which needs: practical or strategic are addressed. In the case of Saudi Arabia, if the right to vote is considered SGN then it is just a matter of time for practical needs to be met. While in fact, women are still forbidden to drive so what is a point of granting them the right to vote? It struck me in a sense that while there should be a distinction between PGN and SGN. I think like the top-down and bottom-up approach, PGN and SGN should be collaborative in implementing gender-related development issues. We can’t wait until PGN are completely met to put SGN into agenda. Or in contrast, we can’t blame on the ignorance of SGN in development agenda to implement PGN. They are equally important for the comprehensive development of women in all aspects: education, economics, politics, etc.
ReplyDelete