Ameen Mitwally, Research Associate at the Ayaan Institute, argues that Saudi Arabia’s progress towards modernisation does not amount to political progress and further embeds racial capitalism and authoritarianism.

Saudi Arabia’s Modernization Mirage: Liberalism, Authoritarianism, and the Politics of Reform

Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 is not merely an economic roadmap; it is a carefully constructed narrative designed to secure investment, legitimacy, and strategic alliances within the global order. The spectacle of events like the Joy Awards, MDLBEAST, and the Formula 1 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix is not incidental but instrumental—a political strategy to persuade Western audiences that the kingdom is progressing toward modernization. Yet, modernization in this context does not equate to political liberalization. Instead, the regime deploys self-orientalist narratives that frame its transformation within a Western-defined paradigm of progress, reinforcing global power asymmetries. This essay contends that Saudi Arabia’s modernization discourse is not simply about economic progress; it is a profoundly ideological strategy that secures its place within the capitalist world-system. By harnessing cultural spectacles, selective reforms, and massive economic investments, the kingdom maintains its authoritarian control while attracting Western support—a strategy that reinforces racialized global hierarchies and justifies Western complicity in its repressive practices.

Modernization as an Ideological Strategy

Vision 2030 is presented as a radical rupture from the kingdom’s traditional past—a deliberate rebranding of Saudi Arabia as a dynamic, forward-thinking nation. For Saudi leadership, this narrative is a tool to secure foreign investment and diversify the economy. For Western governments, think tanks, and corporations, it provides the pretext for continued economic and military partnerships. Yet the modernization narrative is profoundly selective. While reforms—such as granting women the right to drive and increasing the female workforce to 34.1% in 2023—are celebrated as milestones of progress, substantive political reform remains conspicuously absent. Political dissent is criminalized, and activists are systematically silenced. This selective liberalization ensures that the monarchy retains its authoritarian grip while projecting an image of gradual progress. Moreover, this narrative operates within the logic of racial capitalism, positioning Saudi Arabia as a subordinate actor whose modernization is permissible only if it conforms to Western investment and strategic imperatives.

Understanding Vision 2030 through Orientalism, Racial Capitalism, and Authoritarian Neoliberalism

Orientalism and Self-Orientalism

Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism offers a potent framework for understanding Saudi Arabia’s modernization strategy. The regime actively engages in self-orientalism by repurposing orientalist tropes to recast its historical image. By depicting pre-2016 Saudi Arabia as inherently “backward” and positioning Vision 2030 as a transformative, progressive project, the state constructs a binary between a traditional, conservative past and a modern, liberal future. This binary not only reassures domestic constituencies by preserving select cultural values but also aligns the kingdom with Western developmental narratives that validate its reform agenda.

As David Wearing contends, “the key conceptual ingredient in squaring purported British values with concrete British policy… is racism.” By framing the peoples and cultures of the Arabian Peninsula in an essentially racist manner, Western political classes have historically justified their continued support for authoritarian regimes in the region. The reform narrative that Saudi Arabia promotes is a distinct manifestation of this racialized discourse—it not only normalizes the kingdom as a state in transition but also positions it as the only viable partner for the liberal West. In doing so, the regime implies that only its reformers can transform society to embrace liberal democracy, thereby masking ongoing repression behind an image of progressive change.

Racial Capitalism and Global Hierarchies

Cedric Robinson’s concept of racial capitalism asserts that capitalism is inextricably linked to racial exploitation and hierarchies. Capitalism did not emerge in a neutral context; it evolved from a European feudal system steeped in racialized practices. Consequently, capitalism perpetuates racial distinctions to sustain economic inequalities. Building on this, scholars like Ramon Grosfoguel emphasize that the global capitalist order is heterogeneous, with peripheral regions integrated through multiple, coeval forms of labor that both exploit and subordinate. For Saudi Arabia, this means that its aggressive entry into global entertainment and tourism markets is conditioned by its persistent positioning as a racialized “other.” The kingdom’s cultural productions—films that gain acclaim at Western festivals, musicians engaging in international collaborations, and art exhibited in global galleries—are valued primarily through a Western lens. This external validation reinforces existing global racial hierarchies rather than celebrating indigenous creativity.

In the Saudi context, modernization becomes a mechanism to maintain elite control while labor exploitation remains endemic. As Grosfoguel emphasizes, capitalist accumulation in the non-European periphery is characterized by the coexistence of “free” labor zones, typically reserved for Western or elite professionals, alongside “coerced” labor provided by millions of migrant workers from South and Southeast Asia. These workers, who endure exploitative conditions and wage theft, are indispensable to mega-projects like NEOM and Qiddiya. Their exploitation not only underpins Saudi economic modernization but also reaffirms global racial hierarchies. The narrative of the “reforming monarch” thus serves a dual purpose: it legitimizes the kingdom’s selective reforms and provides an ideological cover for Western support by reinforcing the belief that only such a state can be modernized under Western principles.

Authoritarian Neoliberalism

The framework of authoritarian neoliberalism challenges the notion that economic liberalization naturally leads to political democratization. Scholars such as Ian Bruff and Adam Hanieh have shown that market reforms can be harnessed to reinforce authoritarian control. In Saudi Arabia, Vision 2030’s implementation has coincided with significant consolidation of power through royal decrees that expand executive authority while simultaneously promoting economic liberalization. The Kingdom’s privatization program has opened various sectors to foreign investment through regulatory changes, yet analysis suggests that ownership patterns of these ‘privatized’ entities remain dominated by royal-affiliated conglomerates and individuals with close ties to the crown prince. This pattern illustrates how authoritarian control can be maintained even during periods of apparent economic opening.

The Contradictions of Saudi Modernization

The paradoxes within Saudi Arabia’s modernization narrative are profound. On one hand, the regime invests heavily in high-profile cultural and entertainment projects. Since Vision 2030’s launch, the kingdom has announced investments of over $64 billion in entertainment infrastructure, with the General Entertainment Authority hosting more than 3,800 events that attracted over 80 million attendees. The $900 million agreement for the Formula 1 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, the $2 billion LIV Golf investment, and significant spending on the Riyadh Season festival collectively form a glittering spectacle of progress and liberalization—a clear example of “sportswashing” and cultural rebranding. On the other hand, substantive political reform remains elusive. The case of Loujain al-Hathloul—a women’s rights activist imprisoned and allegedly tortured for advocating the right to drive, an issue later co-opted into the modernization narrative—vividly illustrates the regime’s selective liberalization. Despite publicized reforms, human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch continue to document mass executions, pervasive surveillance of dissenters, and sophisticated cyber suppression techniques.

The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 further exposed the fragility of the modernization narrative. The international outcry led to temporary withdrawals of Western investors from flagship events such as the “Davos in the Desert” investment conference; yet, within 18 months, diplomatic and economic relations had normalized. The Biden administration’s initial promise to treat Saudi Arabia as a “pariah” state was soon supplanted by pragmatic engagement, culminating in the approval of a $3 billion defensive arms package in 2022. These episodes reveal that Saudi Arabia’s modernization is less about substantive reform and more about the meticulous management of international perceptions—a strategy that enables the regime to continue its repressive practices under the guise of progress.

Investment Patterns and Economic Liberalization

Economic liberalization under Vision 2030 further substantiates the regime’s strategy. Between 2017 and 2023, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stock saw a 61% increase, reaching nearly $215 billion by 2023. During the same period, FDI inflows rose by 158%, growing from $7.5 billion in 2017 to $19.3 billion in 2023, demonstrating how the modernization narrative successfully attracts global capital even as political reform remains stagnant. Concurrently, the kingdom’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) has grown from $150 billion to over $700 billion since the launch of Vision 2030, though its investments remain tightly controlled by the royal family, particularly by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Moreover, the privatization program has officially opened 13 sectors to foreign investment through regulatory changes; however, these sectors have been consolidated under the influence of royal-affiliated conglomerates, centralized around the authority of MBS, creating an illusion of market liberalization while reinforcing elite control. These investment patterns underscore that economic reforms under Vision 2030 serve as instruments for securing international buy-in while reinforcing domestic authoritarian structures.

The Function of Modernization Discourse in Racial Capitalism

Saudi Arabia’s self-orientalist narrative is central to embedding its modernization discourse within global racial and economic hierarchies. By adopting Western-style developmentalist rhetoric, the kingdom presents itself as a progressive force in global capitalism while reinforcing its dependency on Western investment and military support. The projection of a “reforming” Saudi Arabia provides international allies with a convenient justification for continued engagement, deflecting attention from the repressive structures that underpin its governance.

Cedric Robinson’s concept of racial capitalism further illuminates this process. Saudi Arabia’s entrance into global entertainment and tourism markets occurs under conditions that position it as a racialized “other,” whose legitimacy depends on performing selective reforms that align with Western expectations. Its cultural output—whether films showcased at Western festivals, international music collaborations, or art exhibited in global galleries—is valued primarily through external validation, not on its own indigenous merits. Moreover, labor relations in mega-projects reveal that millions of migrant workers from South and Southeast Asia endure exploitative conditions that epitomize the structural nature of racial capitalism. These dynamics ensure that Saudi Arabia’s economic integration reinforces, rather than disrupts, global racial and economic hierarchies, thereby sustaining its subordinate role within the capitalist world system.

Western Complicity in Saudi Authoritarianism

Western support for Saudi Arabia’s authoritarian modernization is both rhetorical and material. Between 2017 and 2022, the United States approved $54 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, while the United Kingdom authorized £8.2 billion in defense exports. Saudi Arabia became the largest buyer of French arms in 2020, with President Macron citing the kingdom’s “reform trajectory” as justification. In 2022 alone, U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia exceeded $3 billion, including missile defense systems and fighter jet maintenance contracts that bolster the regime’s military capacity despite ongoing human rights abuses.

Western governmental discourse further legitimates this complicity. State Department reports consistently frame Saudi human rights abuses as “challenges in an ongoing reform process,” thereby providing diplomatic cover for continued engagement. Influential think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, Brookings Institution, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have published numerous reports that emphasize Saudi economic modernization while downplaying political repression, many of which receive financial support from Saudi entities. Corporate partnerships and media strategies further reinforce this dynamic. Exclusive deals with entertainment conglomerates like the $500 million WWE events deal and substantial investments in Western media companies further sanitize Saudi Arabia’s public image, transforming it into a modernizing state and obscuring its continued repressive practices.

Conclusion: Beyond the Modernization Mirage

At its core, Saudi Arabia’s modernization discourse is not a neutral economic strategy but an ideological mechanism that secures its position within the global capitalist order. By crafting a narrative of progress through high-profile cultural spectacles, selective reforms, and massive economic investments, the regime constructs an illusion of liberalization that conceals its deeply entrenched authoritarian practices. The dramatic surge in FDI—from $1.4 billion in 2017 to $19.3 billion in 2022—and the explosive growth of the Public Investment Fund, from $150 billion to over $700 billion, attest to the kingdom’s ability to attract international capital even as substantive political reform remains elusive.

Critically, the Saudi case challenges the conventional assumption that economic liberalization naturally leads to democratization. Instead, it reveals that modernization discourse can be weaponized to reinforce authoritarian control, serving the strategic interests of global capital and Western geopolitical imperatives. The interplay of self-orientalist narratives, racial capitalism, and authoritarian neoliberalism demonstrates that liberalism and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive but are interdependent forces sustaining the global capitalist order. Western complicity—manifested through extensive arms sales, diplomatic cover, and media partnerships—further legitimizes this model, allowing the regime to project an image of reform while continuing to suppress dissent.

For the Ayaan Institute, dedicated to advancing Muslim solidarity and rethinking development through ethical, inclusive frameworks, this analysis offers critical insights into the limitations of the modernization narrative. It forces us to confront the seductive promises of economic diversification and cultural spectacle, and to ask: Who truly benefits from this “reform” if the system perpetuates inequality and repression? True progress, then, must be measured not by the veneer of modernization but by the genuine empowerment and liberation of all segments of society. Only by dismantling the entrenched structures of orientalist discourse, racial capitalism, and authoritarian neoliberalism can we envision a future that upholds justice, freedom, and solidarity for the Muslim world. In this light, Saudi Arabia’s modernization mirage is not a triumph of progress but a calculated strategy of control—a strategy that must be critically interrogated if we are to reimagine a more equitable model of development.

Statement on the use of AI:

This article is based on my own research, arguments, and theoretical frameworks. AI tools, such as Claudia and ChatGPT, assisted in drafting and sourcing supporting evidence efficiently, but the analytical direction, core insights, and critical perspectives remain my own. All content was carefully reviewed and refined to ensure it aligned with my voice, intellectual framework, and professional standards.