The Olympics is a symbolic victory for Saudi Arabian women, but let’s not get carried away

Uncomfortable questions must continue to be asked about the treatment of women’s sport.

Simply by entering the Olympic stadium for the opening ceremony, two Saudi Arabian women made history. The inclusion of Saudi Arabia alongside female athletes from Brunei and Qatar means that, for the first time since the modern Olympics began, every country will be represented by at least one woman.

For this and many other reasons, the 2012 Olympic Games has all of the ingredients to be the best for women, ever. There are more events for women, more medals on offer and the best female representation of women we have ever seen.

The Olympics will shine a spotlight on female athleticism this summer – celebrating women’s achievements and inspiring women to get more active. Our Go Girl campaign demands that this continue long after the games so that women’s sport is finally given the recognition it deserves.

Yet, in some areas of the world the barriers to participation are insurmountably high. Women have been able to participate in the Olympics since 1900, but it is only now that women from Brunei, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been given this opportunity. In Saudi Arabia there is almost no tradition of female participation in sport and it was unclear until a few weeks ago whether Saudi women would be prevented from competing at all.

The Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation (WSFF) called on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to uphold the Olympic charter, which states that “any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, sex or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.” We told the Saudis that sending a woman to compete as a neutral would be nothing more than a token gesture, completely at odds with the Olympic spirit. We celebrated when the decision to send female athletes was reached but recognised that it was a small step in a much longer journey.

Symbolic, yes. Revolutionary? Perhaps not.

The restrictions on Saudi women participating in sport in their country meant that it would have been impossible to find a suitably qualified athlete on home soil. Sarah Attar, who will be representing the county in the 800m, lives and trains in southern California. She has spent very little time in Saudi Arabia, where she would be unable to compete in public.

By contrast judo competitor Wodjan Shaherkani, has never stepped foot outside of the country. She is coached by her father in private and, with just a blue belt to her name, is woefully, and perhaps dangerously, under-qualified to compete at an international level. They are at the games thanks to the IOC's Principle of Universality, which says that a small number of non-qualified competitors can be sent to compete in the Olympics.

Squaring the appearance of Attar and Shaherkani with the deep societal barriers faced by women in Saudi Arabia is a troubling conundrum. It is a huge leap forward that the girls have been accepted as members of a team of elite athletes. But significant barriers remain.

The athletes are competing under strict sharia conditions. Both are commanded to wear “suitable clothing during competition” and will reportedly be accompanied by a “guardian” to accompany them at all at times. There were doubts over whether Shaherkani would be able to compete at all after a disagreement between the International Judo Federation and the Saudi’s over whether the wearing of a headscarf would be allowed.

Both athletes have been subjected to disturbing online abuse after daring to participate in the opening ceremony. The hashtag “Prostitutes of the Olympics” was circulating on the social networking site Twitter late last week in reference to the two women. With Shaherkani competing on Friday it remains to be seen how much worse the abuse will get. 

The inclusion of Attar and Shaherkani at the very least shines a spotlight on the sort of discrimination faced by women in Saudi Arabia. It sets a precedent of women’s participation, which will be difficult for the Saudi’s to reverse. But, we must not allow the international community to consider their inclusion in the games mission accomplished.

Uncomfortable questions must continue to be asked about the treatment of women’s sport - both at home and abroad.

As cyclist Lizzie Armitstead pointed out after her silver medal victory on Sunday, sexism remains an issue even in the western world, where women’s sport is underfunded and overlooked by the media. Online abuse is not reserved for Saudi competitors. Team GB weightlifter Zoe Smith has complained about internet trolls who have criticised her for participating in a "male" sport. While none of this compares with an outright ban on public participation, failing to make the case for equal treatment of female athletes at home certainly doesn’t help the international community’s case when pushing for better treatment of women’s sport abroad.

Our research shows that female role models are essential for inspiring women to become more active. Participating in sport makes girls more likely to achieve educational and career goals, avoid teenage pregnancy and develop greater body confidence. Making sport more accessible to women therefore goes hand in hand with the achievement of a more equal, democratic and progressive society.

Attar and Shaherkani should feel very proud to take their place in history.

But, London 2012 can only be considered a true success if it marks the beginning of a shift in attitudes towards women’s sport the world over.

This must be the true legacy of the Olympic Games.

Sue Tibballs is the chief executive of the Women's Sport and Fitness Federation

Sarah Attar of Saudi Arabia carries her country's flag during the Opening Ceremony. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump ushers in a new era of kakistocracy: government by the worst people

Trump will lead the whitest, most male cabinet in memory – a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

“What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone,” wrote the American poet James Russell Lowell in 1876, in a letter to his fellow poet Joel Benton. “Is it or is it not a result of democracy? Is ours a ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?”

Is there a better, more apt description of the incoming Trump administration than “kakistocracy”, which translates from the Greek literally as government by the worst people? The new US president, as Barack Obama remarked on the campaign trail, is “uniquely unqualified” to be commander-in-chief. There is no historical analogy for a President Trump. He combines in a single person some of the worst qualities of some of the worst US presidents: the Donald makes Nixon look honest, Clinton look chaste, Bush look smart.

Trump began his tenure as president-elect in November by agreeing to pay out $25m to settle fraud claims brought against the now defunct Trump University by dozens of former students; he began the new year being deposed as part of his lawsuit against a celebrity chef. On 10 January, the Federal Election Commission sent the Trump campaign a 250-page letter outlining a series of potentially illegal campaign contributions. A day later, the head of the non-partisan US Office of Government Ethics slammed Trump’s plan to step back from running his businesses as “meaningless from a conflict-of-interest perspective”.

It cannot be repeated often enough: none of this is normal. There is no precedent for such behaviour, and while kakistocracy may be a term unfamiliar to most of us, this is what it looks like. Forget 1876: be prepared for four years of epic misgovernance and brazen corruption. Despite claiming in his convention speech, “I alone can fix it,” the former reality TV star won’t be governing on his own. He will be in charge of the richest, whitest, most male cabinet in living memory; a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

There has been much discussion about the lack of experience of many of Trump’s appointees (think of the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who has no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs) and their alleged bigotry (the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, denied a role as a federal judge in the 1980s following claims of racial discrimination, is on course to be confirmed as attorney general). Yet what should equally worry the average American is that Trump has picked people who, in the words of the historian Meg Jacobs, “are downright hostile to the mission of the agency they are appointed to run”. With their new Republican president’s blessing, they want to roll back support for the poorest, most vulnerable members of society and don’t give a damn how much damage they do in the process.

Take Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general selected to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt describes himself on his LinkedIn page as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” and has claimed that the debate over climate change is “far from settled”.

The former neurosurgeon Ben Carson is Trump’s pick for housing and urban development, a department with a $49bn budget that helps low-income families own homes and pay the rent. Carson has no background in housing policy, is an anti-welfare ideologue and ruled himself out of a cabinet job shortly after the election. “Dr Carson feels he has no government experience,” his spokesman said at the time. “He’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.”

The fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder, who was tapped to run the department of labour, doesn’t like . . . well . . . labour. He prefers robots, telling Business Insider in March 2016: “They’re always polite . . . They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case.”

The billionaire Republican donor Betsy DeVos, nominated to run the department of education, did not attend state school and neither did any of her four children. She has never been a teacher, has no background in education and is a champion of school vouchers and privatisation. To quote the education historian Diane Ravitch: “If confirmed, DeVos will be the first education secretary who is actively hostile to public education.”

The former Texas governor Rick Perry, nominated for the role of energy secretary by Trump, promised to abolish the department that he has been asked to run while trying to secure his party’s presidential nomination in 2011. Compare and contrast Perry, who has an undergraduate degree in animal science but failed a chemistry course in college, with his two predecessors under President Obama: Dr Ernest Moniz, the former head of MIT’s physics department, and Dr Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. In many ways, Perry, who spent the latter half of 2016 as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, is the ultimate kakistocratic appointment.

“Do Trump’s cabinet picks want to run the government – or dismantle it?” asked a headline in the Chicago Tribune in December. That’s one rather polite way of putting it. Another would be to note, as the Online Etymology Dictionary does, that kakistocracy comes from kakistos, the Greek word for “worst”, which is a superlative of kakos, or “bad”, which “is related to the general Indo-European word for ‘defecate’”.

Mehdi Hasan has rejoined the New Statesman as a contributing editor and will write a fortnightly column on US politics

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era