The Methodological Structure for Reading the Thoughts of Prince Mohammed bin Salman (1): Is There an Idea Behind the Achievement 23

Listen to the article, the audio text is automatically generated by a machine system.

After the articles in this series expanded and their titles multiplied, the need became urgent to review their structure, organize their topics, and regulate the connections between them; so I paused for a review and found that there is a methodological question that should confront this series, after the articles that have passed; it is the question that should have preceded all of them:

Are we reading the thoughts of His Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or are we reading the achievements of the Saudi transformation, and then granting them, through our interpretation, a conceptual framework of our own? And is the abundance of achievements, the breadth of their fields, and the magnitude of their effects sufficient for us to say that there is a vision behind them that can be revealed, understood, and traced in speech and decision?

This is a question upon which the legitimacy of the reading itself depends; for a writer can gather facts under an attractive title, connect them with precise phrases, and make them appear as parts of a single system, while the connection is more a product of his language than of the nature of his material. At that point, the writer's language becomes a veil that obstructs understanding, and what he believes to be a discovery becomes an imposition of his perceptions onto his subject. Hence, this series needs a pause to clarify what it is searching for, in what sense it uses the word 'thought,' and what it considers as evidence for it, which is a pause at the heart of the work. The reading that expands its topics and diversifies its titles needs to review its foundation, so that the questions remain capable of guiding the writing, and so that the continuous writing does not turn into a justification for its continuation.

The thought intended here is: 'a set of perceptions related to understanding reality, assessing possibilities, prioritizing, choosing means, and defining goals.' These perceptions may appear in interpreting a problem, justifying a decision, comparing between paths, or stating what should change and what deserves to remain. Its interpretive value is gained when it transcends a single occasion, and its extension is inferred from multiple evidence, each with its context and limits. The existence of this thought does not require its owner to have formulated it in a theoretical book or organized it into chapters and terms; rather, political and developmental practice produces its questions in confronting reality, and the roots of the thought may be revealed from the way of dealing with the facts.

However, the absence of theoretical writing doubles the responsibility of the reading maker; because they are responsible for gathering the material and classifying it, proposing the links between its parts, and they must clarify where the text ends and where their conclusion begins.

Therefore, the occurrence of the achievement alone is not enough to prove the idea we interpret it with; a single result may be achieved through different motivations, and a single procedure may serve multiple purposes. The opening of an institution, for example, proves its existence and its declared function; however, its indication of a broader conception of the relationship between the state and society requires something beyond the news of the opening.

Here begins the difference between recording the event and building knowledge about it: which interpretation is supported by evidence, and which interpretation has been added by the writer's desire?

Accordingly, it is necessary to distinguish between what has been achieved, the declared interpretation of it, and the significance that the reading extracts from it. These are connected levels, but they do not coincide; the achievement is an event that is examined, the interpretation is a statement read in its context, and the significance is a conclusion that requires evidence. The more these levels are mixed, the easier it becomes to attribute to the facts what has not been proven, and to the statements what has not been said, and then we deal with our conclusion as an established truth.

When we read the thoughts of His Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman, his speeches and direct statements in interviews, words, and declarations are essential material for understanding his way of thinking and reasoning. Documents, programs, and decisions help examine the relationship between the conception and its applications, and each material has its weight; a statement explaining the reason for choosing a certain path provides understanding that a report announcing the completion of a project does not offer, while a document that specifies a goal provides evidence of intent, whereas assessing the achievement of that goal requires other evidence.

The conclusion is strengthened when we find a recurring logic in different issues: How is the problem defined? What is considered an obstacle? On what basis are priorities arranged? How is the cost of delay estimated? These questions allow for the exploration of what connects decisions, without assuming that all decisions stem from a single cause, as economic, social, and security considerations may converge in a decision, with their weights varying according to the circumstances; this is what the reading should accommodate, instead of condensing it into a comprehensive statement.

The reading also needs to examine what opposes its conclusion; if it seems that a certain principle governs a number of situations, it must seek out situations that cannot be explained by this principle, and ascertain the limits of its applicability, and consider the possibility of another explanation that is more capable of understanding those situations, as exceptions may reveal the weakness of the hypothesis, may uncover a condition we overlooked, and may indicate a change in estimation, and in all cases, preserving the fact as it is is more beneficial than forcibly interpreting it to protect the proposed structure.

Time is part of this examination; it is not correct to gather two statements separated by years and then judge the connection between them while neglecting what has changed during that time, as the purpose may remain while the means change, knowledge may expand leading to a change in priority, and experience may reveal a need for review, and for this reason, the search for thought in practice requires tracking its movement, distinguishing between the development of the concept, the change of its tools, and the response to a transient circumstance, while assuming its completeness from the outset carries the beginnings with the knowledge of the endings, which is not justified by systematic reading. Here, the responsibility of this series is defined: to provide a reading that allows the reader to discern its evidence, discuss its transitions, and distinguish between degrees of certainty within it, as admiration for the achievement is a legitimate motive for reflection, but it does not replace proof, and estimation gains depth when it can explain what it estimates, and as much as we care about the value of our subject, we should also be careful not to say more about it than its material allows.

So: Is there an idea behind the achievement? It is an open question for research, its answer is formed as much as the evidence supports it, the reasoning becomes clear, and the connections are established, and the task of this reading is to make its transition from the achievement to the thought a clear and verifiable transition; the idea that deserves to be attributed to its owner deserves first that we establish evidence for its existence.