Saudi Arabia's most recent attempt to contain growing dissent in the absolute monarchy is now focusing on Twitter. The anonymity provided by the social media site is being targeted by Saudi authorities, who want to require that all Twitter users first register their personal identification details before they are permitted to use the site. Estimates are that approximately three million Saudis are on Twitter.
Anonymity is a powerful shield for anyone who wishes to criticize the highly conservative theocratic kingdom. Unable to identify many of their anonymous opponents and critics, supporters of the status quo now want to hold every Saudi citizen accountable for every Tweet that they send.
In addition to debating a wide variety of political issues, some brave activists are using Twitter to make scathing allegations of corruptions at the highest levels of the Saudi government. State-controlled media is unsurprisingly not receptive to running many of these stories, so Twitter is providing an alternate mechanism for publicizing these concerns. Of course, many government supporters also make use of Twitter to stay in contact with their own loyal audiences. Religious leaders can post their sermons online as easily as activists can post their incendiary attacks.
Interestingly, the relationship between Twitter and the Saudi royal family is not purely adversarial. Prince Alwaleed, the richest man in the kingdom, just happens to have invested $300 million in the company in 2011, thereby complicating official policy in this area.
Last month, the target was Skype and similar services that allow inexpensive communication tools that bypass the old-fashion telephone. Initially used as a simple means to provide phone and messaging services through computers, Skype also provides users with a way to communicate outside the reach of nervous Saudi authorities and censors.
The threat posed by dissent is clear. Although the aftermath of the Arab Spring has been largely ineffective, at its height the forces released around the Middle East and North Africa during these original protests were unpredictable and difficult to contain. Officials at the Communications and Information Technology Commission in Riyadh are keen to ensure that social media is not appropriated again by those who wish to undermine the status quo.
This is not the first time that the Saudi government has attempted to bend technological innovation to its own end. Three years ago, Blackberry was forced to make concessions regarding its message encryption system in order to avert a ban. Importantly, Blackberry never made the terms of its final agreement with the Saudi authorities public.
As technology has evolved in recent years, the methods used by authoritarian governments to keeping an eye on troublesome individuals has had to try to keep pace. Today, anyone with a decent cell phone can indulge in arguments, assertions and allegations that are increasingly difficult for civil and religious authorities to police. Saudi Arabia is not alone in wrestling with disaffected citizens pouring scorn on their policies. Both Kuwait and Bahrain have demonstrated a willingness to jail those who use the internet as a means to voice their contrary opinions.
Underlying the hand-wringing in Saudi Arabia over how to contain the rise of online dissent is a more fundamental problem. The question of how to integrate modern conceptions of individual liberty and choice into the strictly-controlled daily life in the kingdom is a difficult one for the government to answer. In addition to recurring concerns over women's rights and the treatment of religious minorities, Saudi officials must also wrestle with how images of its justice system are viewed around the world.
For example, last week a man convicted of murder and sodomy was publically beheaded, then crucified posthumously and put on display for three-days. He was only the most recent of 28 executions that have occurred in Saudi Arabia since the start of the year. Capital punishment is handed out regularly for a wide variety of offenses including drug trafficking and armed robbery. Even apostasy is still punishable by death under the theocratic laws of the kingdom.
Ultimately, all dictatorships are built on consensus. The consensus they require is extensive and unquestioning. In some ways, of course, every consensus that ever arises brings with it its own incremental increase in authoritarianism. However, the scale and fragility of the uniformity in beliefs that underpins a dictatorship provides its own Achilles' heel. Dissent attacks the pretenses and presumptions that sustain these beliefs, and encourages further dissent simply by demonstrating its availability as an option.
The Saudi government must eventually learn to tolerate an increasing amount of open debate and discussion, while still maintaining its legitimacy with its citizens. Otherwise, the sense of frustration that has been fermenting across the country will only continue to build in the years to come.
Keeping the technological wizardry of the modern world at bay indefinitely seems a futile task. The image of Canute, the 11th century king of England, comes quickly to mind. Legend has it that he thought his powers so great that he vainly attempted to hold back the very tides that broke on his shores. Of course, his regal majesty was insufficient to this task.
Saudi authorities will similarly need to accept the limits of their own influence, and adapt themselves to the opportunities of the modern world that their own citizens are so rapidly mastering.