Some comments lower in the post
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
> Hi Lawry,
>
> On this bright and sunny morning I'll return to the tail-end of your
> posting (without re-naming the thread this time!) because it contains a
> couple of very important points.
>
> 1.
> According to Prof Bernard Lewis ("What went wrong?"), the principal enemy
> of fundamentalist Islam in most countries is *not* other religions,
> zionism, communism or even western imperialism(!) but secularism itself
and
> its associated schools and universities. I found this difficult to
believe,
> but thinking about the direction in which fundamentalist Christianity
> appears to be rapidly heading in western countries (with its denial of
> scientific facts in biology, for example) then I won't argue with one of
> the world's authorities on Islam.
>
> Wahhabism must therefore share considerable blame for the economic decline
> of Saudi Arabia in that its type of religious education, which dominates
> the vast majority of schools (except presumably of the private schools for
> the rich in Riyadh) excludes any form of practical education and, in fact,
> produces a state of mind quite early in a boy's life that causes him to
> abjure any sort of technical education even if it were available later.
> (Therefore all work in private non-oil industry and the retail trade is
> carried out by foreignors.) I've mentioned that only 2% of graduates
> (themselves a minority of the youth population) are qualified in
> engineering and suchlike. Presumably, this has been "allowed" in a sort
of
> unconscious manner (by the Wahhibist clerics) in order to produce just
> enough technically trained Saudis who can supervise their oil industry.
>
Another reading could be that the some or most of their elite is very
consciously protecting its
power and privileges this way too; if only their offspring is permitted to
study and have the cultural capital, necessary to thrive in this world, and
the outside world, they can control the ignorant masses a lot better; so
it's more like an evil alliance between machiavelist princes and ignorant
clerics. It
also is an insurance against democracy and loss of power and some money.
Imported
workers will never be able to challenge their bosses the way autochtonous
workers can. Who doesn't obey can easily be removed. With fellow saudi they
can hardly throw them out of the country.
> 2.
> The second important point is that, as you say, all Saudi men (and in
> several other oil-rich Gulf states) don't need to work because they
receive
> an income, health services, etc. from the state. This complete dependency
> on the state, negating the need for practical education and the faintest
> spark of enterprise, is now a great danger for these countries. It is a
> "pure" example of what happens when the welfare state is predominant. In
> effect, it is crippling the culture of any such country for at least a
> couple of generations to come, even if radical reform were to start taking
> place immediately.
>
> (I am not against the idea of the welfare state in principle in the west.
> It's a matter of where to draw the line. It is quite clear in all western
> countries that the verdict of the last century [from the political left
and
> right] is that the welfare state has proceeded too far, and that it now
> needs to recede somewhat if sufficient enterprise [for economic renewal]
> and self-responsibility [for lower crime rates] are to be maintained.)
>
> Keith
I absolutely disagree on this. The Saudi state is not a welfare state. Who
indeed decides there on what the population needs for its welfare? Only a
democratic state can be a welfare state, because to decide on what welfare
we need is a sake of everyone, there must be debate and checks and balances;
how else could you achieve 'well-fare'? A state with free health care is not
necessarily a welfare stated either (there is also the quality of the care
to be considered).
I also wonder on what you found this idea that "the welfare state has
proceded too far" and that it would be in the way of maintaining
'sufficient enterprise'
and 'self-responsibility'? That's a discourse from the right, outdated if
there ever is one, that can easily
be proved false and it has been many times over. But this discussion would
leave too far from the subject of this thread and I wonder if it would be
fruitful. If that is what you believe, no amount of argument will change
that.
I just can say, look at Belgium: we have the best health care system in the
world it seems (according to authoritative sources) and our social system
works very well too, we have a lot less people below the poverty line than
the united States; in spite of that our workers are amongst the most
productive in the world and the country belongs to the richest five. Not bad
for a welfare state. That is thanks to this welfare state and not in spite
of it.
>
> (LdB)
> <<<<
> Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have
> tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil
> revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the
country,
> and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on
> the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own.
This
> is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is a very
hard
> nut to crack. Saudi over-spending has left them in debt, and so this
pattern
> is being severely challenged -- and for simple economic reasons and not
> religious ones. Will Saudi Arabia and the others, find a way, despite
their
> wealth, to evolve a competent diversified indigenous workforce? This is,
> IMHO, the number one issue before them. I did a detailed study (including
a
> large public opinion survey) several years ago of this stuation in one
such
> country (not SA) and was impressed by how hard it was going to be.
> >>>>
>
I agree
Jan.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------
>
> Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
