I find there are two types of change: the one that doesn’t happen, and the one that does. Those who hide behind the auspices of “gradual change” and “gradual reform” over revolutions in many of these corrupt systems ought to re-evaluate what exactly they are seeking to change. The notion of entrusting these dictators to transition into democracy is absurd, but what is more absurd is the idea that “things can be worse”. For a long time, dictators in the Arab world held on to power by stoking fear of [fill in threatening group here]. Additionally, the dictators’ enablers (often Western) pretend to derive credibility from their own ownership of democracy in their homelands. It is the most absurd marriage of ideas to combine a despot who terrorizes his people and call him a reformer with a “democracy promoter” whose idea of change is investing political, social and economic capital in these dictators. What could be worse than a despot backed by an opportunist superpower to maintain the status quo?

Recently, I heard Robert Lacey speak about Saudi Arabia and what type of change we should expect to see there. He called King Abdullah a “reformer” showing a picture of him with women that is otherwise banned in many Saudi media outlets. He warned of the even more conservative rifts in the Kingdom. The youth is conservative he adds. Are we to believe that Saudi Arabia could possibly be more conservative if people power took over? If anything these so-called benevolent dictators are either obscenely conservative themselves or have done a really poor job of making it less conservative.  The fact is if the regime were to be properly toppled in Saudi Arabia, the fanatic, religious despots would go down with it. After all, when the Kingdom banned protests, demonstrations and petitions, it did it through a fatwa.

It appears that Robert Lacey is much more in tune with the royal family than he is with society. He talked of having tea with this royal highness or that prince; he was even there when one of them choked on his falafel or something assanine like that. Moreover, the extent of his knowledge on the masses or youth was a reference to an MTV documentary on Saudi Arabia. While the documentary is worth watching, are we supposed to take his analysis of society seriously now? Even if we were to take it seriously, he failed to see what this documentary really showed, which was a complex and diverse society in the Kingdom. Lacey specifically pointed to the frustration of a young man who tried to see a girl he met on Facebook at the mall. He could not enter the mall without being accompanied with his family, and was turned away by the moral police. When asked if he would like his sister to meet a male at the mall, the young man said absolutely not. This is Lacey’s proof of how conservative the youth is. Instead of recognizing the complexity and contradictions of this young man and perhaps the youth as a whole, he concluded that the youth is conservative. Did he not watch the rest of the documentary that featured a religious man working with women’s rights group to bolster their representation? Or the young woman who used fashion to break boundaries for females? Or perhaps the heavy metal band that would wear satanist shirts, but stop their rehearsal for prayers? Not to mention all these youths’ supportive families. What Lacey misses is not only an understanding of the complexity of society, but also their common struggles. At the end of the day, even if the young man does not want his sister to meet strange men at malls, both men and women face a highly invasive state power. This state has molded religious fanaticism with the political structure in a manner that seals their fate together–whether they survive or get toppled.

For real change to take place, one simply cannot entrust the beneficiaries of the status quo–despots (“reformers”) and their enablers (“democracy promoters”) alike–with the responsibility or rather pleasure of screwing themselves over.