Did we have to lower our flags for the Saudi king?

Quite why flags in this country should have flown at half mast for the death of Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud on Friday has perplexed many and enraged not a few.

After all, the Saudi kingdom has as many as 2 million (largely foreign) Christians but not a single church. Then again, there is the lack of free speech, gender equality and other human rights, not to mention public executions and the recent draconian sentence for dissident blogger Raif Badawi of 2,000 lashes and many years in prison.

Strangest of all to most Westerners, women are not allowed to drive a car and must be completely covered at all times when they’re out in public.

The British Government has sought to portray flying the flags of ministerial buildings – and Westminster Abbey, a royal peculiar – as largely a matter of protocol and something they had merely suggested in deference to a request from Buckingham Palace.

Nonetheless, this was in fact discretionary and therefore a gesture that sends a special signal of cordiality appropriate for a national ally. So did we have to lower our flags? Saudi Arabia is appreciative of such gestures. And, however modest the steps were, the king did make important gestures in support of dialogue and greater harmony, despite internal criticism.

Britain and Saudi Arabia do co-operate significantly on security matters, as befits a shared fear of a common extremist foe. Yet many find it hard avoid the suspicion that our defence industry’s multi-million pound contracts with Saudi Arabia might also have featured in the reasoning, as well as the continuing importance of Saudi oil.

But what would any kind of alternative regime in Saudi Arabia look like, and would it pay any more attention to the values the West usually tries to promote?

Internally, there is dissent between those who seek liberal reforms, and extremists who question the religious legitimacy of the present Saudi state. Further tensions exist with the kingdom’s Shia population.

Externally, the Islamic State and Iran pose existential threats to the kingdom. Its southern neighbour, Yemen, is falling into the hands of Shia rebels – enemies both to the Saudis and the West. Meanwhile there is an open-ended disaster unfolding in Iraq (its northern neighbour) and Syria.

Saudi Arabia’s new monarch, King Salman, 79, has been quick to signal continuity in terms of policy. The emerging power behind the throne is likely to be Salman’s 55-year-old nephew, Mohammed bin Nayef. I doubt whether the Saudi establishment – new king or none – is willing to contemplate any relaxation of the country’s religious restrictions.

What, for example, will happen to the King Abdullah International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Vienna (KAICIID – where I was for some time an adviser)?

While Saudi Arabia launched the centre with Spain and Austria, and with the Holy See as founding observer, almost all the funding has come from Riyadh, which also remains entirely dominant in its internal leadership.

The Austrian Government is looking at a review as a result of popular disquiet at Vienna even hosting the initiative. If it is to have a long-term future the centre needs more nations on its governing council and truly multinational leadership internally.

He was instrumental in pushing for the centre’s establishment and it would be fitting if it can become an institution that can engage the positive capacity of religion to overcome conflict. That would warrant putting out more flags, in celebration, rather than merely lowering them.

Canon Alistair Macdonald-Radcliff served as senior adviser to the World Economic Forum’s Council of 100 and was Quondam Dean of All Saints’ Anglican Cathedral in Cairo