Australian “democracy” presents a choice, between two dominant parties. Votes for smaller parties are eliminated. Both major parties are interlocked in that their existence depends on the persistence of the dichotomy between capital and labour.
The system prioritises the sanctity of the existing power relations; it will be defended so long as both sides share the rewards of office. “Democracy” is an illusion disguising the revolving door of two co-dependent entities.
Ironically, the Australian model is the bench-mark against which countries like Saudi Arabia are criticised. Coincidental to the Khashoggi Affair, there is a growing international movement to force change in the Middle East. This is a movement that in criticising overseas governance, is ignorant of the shortcomings of systems at home.
In post-modernist times, the focus is switching from capital and labour towards identity and belief. Ironically, those who purport tolerance of difference are the same that attack Islamic governance. Post-modernism is the beginning of anarchy and anything surviving the test of time is targeted.
Monarchies are especially vulnerable as they represent the perceived disjuncture between those who have and those who do not. This reductionist perspective takes no account of the capacity for monarchies to be benevolent. Failing monarchs ultimately cede their reign and even their lives as the price for accountability.
The success of monarchy is not to be judged according to Western values. It is too harsh to judge Middle Eastern monarchies for the different opportunities and roles between men and women. Change in the West has a price.
The cost of living has increased to capture the additional earnings; it now takes two incomes to finance a family and home. In parallel, the West outsources parenting to strangers in the child care trade. Is this change desirable? If not, the task of the criticised is to defend their differences.
Saudi Arabia is conceding the moral agenda to its critics. Criticism pervades the media and has the potential to redefine the Kingdom and Islam more broadly as pariah. Saudi Arabia must win over hearts and minds.
Ironically, Saudi Arabia should be taking its cue from Western gays and feminists, owning differences loud & proud and promoting its right to exist and thrive. For Western governments silence comes with a price. Saudi is an important ally because of its stability in a theater of chaos.
Australia should be countering the current xenophobic shift against the Saudi Monarchy and Middle Eastern people by promoting tolerance and acceptance for their way of life; the same values the post modernists purportedly seek to apply here in Australia [when it suits].
Our governments should be mindful of falling prey to public opinion molded by outside influencers. It is important to be mindful these critical campaigns can overwhelm Governments that ultimately accede.
These forces can ultimately threaten the special relationship between Australia and the Middle East. Who are we to stand in judgement over other countries and their systems when we have yet to get our own house in order?