Saudi Arabia is apparently struggling with the decision of whether not women should be allowed to vote.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Women may neither vote nor run in Saudi Arabia's first nationwide elections, the government announced Monday, dashing hopes of progressive Saudis and easing fears among conservatives that the kingdom is moving too fast on reforms.The Saudis have far different standards of "progress" and "reform" than we Americans do, but I asked a over a year ago.
As Dean Esmay notes, it's been 83 years, and what have women really done for us? Prohibition -- good move. That worked well. Oh sure, it was ratified before women could vote, but it was their idea. Let's see... that's pretty much it.Similarly in Saudi Arabia, some women are opposed to voting.Let's be serious here though and really consider. Are we as a nation better off having given women the power to vote? I agree that from a moral perspective it was the right thing to do, but I don't think the issue is that black and white; there were substantial groups of women opposed to granting women suffrage.
Some women considered the move yet another indignity in a country where they need their husbands' permission to study, travel or work. But others said they wouldn't trust themselves to judge whether a candidate is more than just a handsome face. ...There are really two questions to answer. First, is there a right to vote? Second, will allowing women to vote make Saudi Arabia a "better" place (presumably as defined by the Saudis).Many women in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, have balked at getting the ID cards — introduced three years ago — because the photographs would show their faces unveiled.
The answer to the first question is no -- there is no right to vote. Voting is merely a tool that's incredibly useful for protecting liberty. It would be theoretically possible to have a perfectly free and just society under the rule of an absolute monarch. Unstable, perhaps, but possible, and therefore voting is not a right in the same way that, say, free expression is.
The answer to the second question is more complicated, because I don't know much about what Saudis want from their government. I suspect that many Saudis want to maintain a repressive theocracy, in which case allowing women to vote probably isn't a good idea. However, if they want to move towards a more liberal, free, and wealthy society, allowing women to vote would probably be a step in the right direction.
Unlike early 20th century Americans, modern Saudis have very little liberty, so their first nationwide election is likely to increase freedoms all around, whether or not women participate (if it's implemented honestly, of course). Still, as a tool for creating freedom they would probably do well to enfranchise as many people as possible.
By that logic, one could just as well argue that it's theoretically possible to have a perfectly just (albeit less free) society with strict speech controls. After all, some speech - almost everything Michael Moore has ever said in a public forum, for starters - is bad for society. Why not allow government to reward good speech and punish bad speech in proportion to the perceived benefit or harm that it causes?
X: Perhaps, although I'd prefer a perfectly free and just society to one that was merely perfectly just.
I would say the mere act of allowing women to vote means that women will remain equal. I would argue that felons who've served their time, partially get a raw deal because they can't vote in certain states.
In the late 90s, Clinton balanced the budget by taking away certain Social Security benefits from non-citizens even though these people had been contributing just like anyone else. It's easier to do that and get away with it when those people who were affected can't vote you out.
Beyond that, I would say that the good that women bring to the process is that they are generally more liberal voters, support things like choice. You might not like that, but I certainly do.
One could argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. brought us the civil rights movement, but it could also be argued that it was started by Rosa Parks.
As to the Saudi women who oppose voting, I say that no one is forcing any of them to vote if they don't want to, but don't take that right away from other women if they want it.
Manish: Exactly my argument, except that I don't particularly like many leftist positions because they tend to lead to bad things, like Europe.
So in essence you don't like the idea of women voting because they vote for things that you oppose.
M: Arguably, leftist positions -- which women disproportionally support -- lead to bad things for everyone, including leftists.
Neat-o, but some of us also prefer a perfectly free, just, democratic and/or egalitarian (before the law) society to one that is merely perfectly free and just. What makes your preferences more valid than anyone else's?
X: It's all about weighting, right? What's more important, democracy/egalitarianism or freedom? If the two conflict, I'd choose freedom any day.
So would I, but I can't assume others will share that preference. If government could be trusted to do a perfect job of determining right from wrong, what use is the "freedom" to do wrong? It can't be trusted to do that, of course, but then again, it can't be trusted to value individual liberty, either, especially if its members can't be voted out of office.