Can God save the Arab kings?
Arab monarchies underpinned by religion have been
unscathed by the Middle East uprisings – but they may
yet be toppled
28 April, 2011 | By Brian Whitaker (The Guardian)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the less-discussed facts about the wave of uprisings in the
Middle East is that the Arab monarchies are still relatively
unscathed. The regimes most seriously challenged by popular
protests – in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria – have all
been republics. This may seem odd to Europeans whose revolutions
over the centuries have been mainly about overthrowing kings.
To some extent, the apparent resilience of Arab monarchies may be
a matter of luck. Most of them are in the Gulf and they have oil,
which means they can (and do) use their money to buy off
discontent. That does not apply to the kingdoms of Jordan and
Morocco, however, and oil wealth has not saved the Gaddafi
regime from trouble in the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya.
Another possible explanation is that Arab monarchs, in the eyes of
many of their citizens, have a stronger claim to legitimacy than
republican leaders who came to power – or clung on to it – in
dubious circumstances.
The monarchies base their legitimacy on religious or tribal roots. The
rulers of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and the Emirates all came
from old and prominent tribes and the "right" to rule was derived
from their families' status.
The Sabah family, for instance, was a clan of the Anizah tribe which
migrated from Nejd – the central plateau of Saudi Arabia – to
Kuwait in the 18th century and has ruled locally ever since. The
Khalifa family was another clan from the same tribe that had arrived
in Bahrain about the same time. The Thani family that rules Qatar is
a branch of the Bani Tameem tribe and also arrived from Nejd in
the 18th century.
The Saudi royal family has tribal roots too, though its main claim to
legitimacy today is religious – so much so that the king's religious
title, Guardian of the Two Holy Shrines (Mecca and Medina, the
two holiest sites in Islam) takes precedence over his royal title.
Similarly, the king of Jordan is official guardian of al-Aqsa mosque
in Jerusalem, regarded as Islam's third holiest site. Jordan's current
monarch, Abdullah II, also boasts of being a "43rd generation direct
descendant of the Prophet Muhammad". Meanwhile the king of
Morocco embodies both "spiritual and temporal authority" and is
known as Amir al-Mu'mineen – the prince (or commander) of the
believers.
Although rule by birthright might seem an inherently objectionable
form of government, the tribal and religious background makes it
difficult to challenge in what are often highly traditional and
patriarchal societies. In the monarchies where there have been
significant protests, such as Morocco, Oman and Jordan,
demonstrators have been demanding reform but without questioning
the ruler's right to govern – which is still very much a taboo.
(Bahrain is a special case, where a Sunni Muslim minority rules over
a Shia majority, making the legitimacy question much more obvious.)
While the legitimacy claims of Arab monarchs might not seem
particularly convincing, especially to outsiders, those of the republics
are even less so.
A number of revolutionary Arab regimes emerged in the 20th
century whose credentials were based primarily on nationalism:
Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, the separate states of
North and South Yemen – plus the Palestinian liberation movement,
which fitted a similar mould.
Typically, these revolutionary regimes pursued populist or socialist
strategies – nationalisation, land reform and so on – which held out
the promise of a better future for the masses. At the same time, they
presented themselves as defenders of the nation's independence,
resisting the corrupting, exploitative effects of western imperialism
and in particular generating unfulfillable popular expectations
regarding the conflict with Israel.
In the wake of successive defeats by Israel, and amid high
unemployment, poverty and rampant corruption, it became all too
obvious that they were failing to deliver.
Some of the republican regimes further undermined their credibility
by starting to resemble monarchies. It began in 2000, when Bashar
al-Assad inherited the Syrian presidency from his father. The
dictators of Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Tunisia and Yemen also showed
signs of intending to hand over power, eventually, to sons or other
relatives.
Arabs mockingly combined the words for "republic" and
"monarchy" to coin a new term for this type of state: jumlukiyya.
The republics – and especially the jumlukiyyas – thus found
themselves scrabbling around for reasons to justify their existence.
The problem was apparent even in 2004 when the UN's Arab
Human Development report spoke of a "crisis of legitimacy":
"Sometimes," the report said, "the mere preservation of the state
entity in the face of external threats was considered an achievement
sufficient to confer legitimacy."
Strangely, it does not seem to have occurred to them that there was
one way they might have re-established their legitimacy: by
governing the country justly and well.
So it's not very surprising that the regimes already toppled or
currently under threat are republics of the family-run jumlukiyya
variety. This does not mean the others are immune – and it's worth
recalling monarchs were overthrown in Egypt, Yemen and Libya
during the 1950s and 1960s.
For now, though, the remaining monarchs are sitting on their thrones
fairly comfortably. After a rocky moment, even the king of Bahrain
seems to have won more time in power, thanks to support from the
royals in neighbouring countries.
This gives them a breathing space in which to reform – if they
choose to do so. Whether they will seize the opportunity is another
matter. At present, Morocco and Kuwait are the only two that look
as if they might, possibly, turn into constitutional monarchies with
accountable government. But if they don't change, their turn will
surely come.
Courtesy
Arab monarchies underpinned by religion have been
unscathed by the Middle East uprisings – but they may
yet be toppled
28 April, 2011 | By Brian Whitaker (The Guardian)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the less-discussed facts about the wave of uprisings in the
Middle East is that the Arab monarchies are still relatively
unscathed. The regimes most seriously challenged by popular
protests – in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria – have all
been republics. This may seem odd to Europeans whose revolutions
over the centuries have been mainly about overthrowing kings.
To some extent, the apparent resilience of Arab monarchies may be
a matter of luck. Most of them are in the Gulf and they have oil,
which means they can (and do) use their money to buy off
discontent. That does not apply to the kingdoms of Jordan and
Morocco, however, and oil wealth has not saved the Gaddafi
regime from trouble in the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya.
Another possible explanation is that Arab monarchs, in the eyes of
many of their citizens, have a stronger claim to legitimacy than
republican leaders who came to power – or clung on to it – in
dubious circumstances.
The monarchies base their legitimacy on religious or tribal roots. The
rulers of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and the Emirates all came
from old and prominent tribes and the "right" to rule was derived
from their families' status.
The Sabah family, for instance, was a clan of the Anizah tribe which
migrated from Nejd – the central plateau of Saudi Arabia – to
Kuwait in the 18th century and has ruled locally ever since. The
Khalifa family was another clan from the same tribe that had arrived
in Bahrain about the same time. The Thani family that rules Qatar is
a branch of the Bani Tameem tribe and also arrived from Nejd in
the 18th century.
The Saudi royal family has tribal roots too, though its main claim to
legitimacy today is religious – so much so that the king's religious
title, Guardian of the Two Holy Shrines (Mecca and Medina, the
two holiest sites in Islam) takes precedence over his royal title.
Similarly, the king of Jordan is official guardian of al-Aqsa mosque
in Jerusalem, regarded as Islam's third holiest site. Jordan's current
monarch, Abdullah II, also boasts of being a "43rd generation direct
descendant of the Prophet Muhammad". Meanwhile the king of
Morocco embodies both "spiritual and temporal authority" and is
known as Amir al-Mu'mineen – the prince (or commander) of the
believers.
Although rule by birthright might seem an inherently objectionable
form of government, the tribal and religious background makes it
difficult to challenge in what are often highly traditional and
patriarchal societies. In the monarchies where there have been
significant protests, such as Morocco, Oman and Jordan,
demonstrators have been demanding reform but without questioning
the ruler's right to govern – which is still very much a taboo.
(Bahrain is a special case, where a Sunni Muslim minority rules over
a Shia majority, making the legitimacy question much more obvious.)
While the legitimacy claims of Arab monarchs might not seem
particularly convincing, especially to outsiders, those of the republics
are even less so.
A number of revolutionary Arab regimes emerged in the 20th
century whose credentials were based primarily on nationalism:
Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, the separate states of
North and South Yemen – plus the Palestinian liberation movement,
which fitted a similar mould.
Typically, these revolutionary regimes pursued populist or socialist
strategies – nationalisation, land reform and so on – which held out
the promise of a better future for the masses. At the same time, they
presented themselves as defenders of the nation's independence,
resisting the corrupting, exploitative effects of western imperialism
and in particular generating unfulfillable popular expectations
regarding the conflict with Israel.
In the wake of successive defeats by Israel, and amid high
unemployment, poverty and rampant corruption, it became all too
obvious that they were failing to deliver.
Some of the republican regimes further undermined their credibility
by starting to resemble monarchies. It began in 2000, when Bashar
al-Assad inherited the Syrian presidency from his father. The
dictators of Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Tunisia and Yemen also showed
signs of intending to hand over power, eventually, to sons or other
relatives.
Arabs mockingly combined the words for "republic" and
"monarchy" to coin a new term for this type of state: jumlukiyya.
The republics – and especially the jumlukiyyas – thus found
themselves scrabbling around for reasons to justify their existence.
The problem was apparent even in 2004 when the UN's Arab
Human Development report spoke of a "crisis of legitimacy":
- "Most regimes, nowadays, bolster their legitimacy by
adopting a simplified and efficient formula to justify their
continuation in power. They style themselves as the lesser of
two evils, or the last line of defence against fundamentalist
tyranny or, even more dramatically, against chaos and the
collapse of the state … "
"Sometimes," the report said, "the mere preservation of the state
entity in the face of external threats was considered an achievement
sufficient to confer legitimacy."
Strangely, it does not seem to have occurred to them that there was
one way they might have re-established their legitimacy: by
governing the country justly and well.
So it's not very surprising that the regimes already toppled or
currently under threat are republics of the family-run jumlukiyya
variety. This does not mean the others are immune – and it's worth
recalling monarchs were overthrown in Egypt, Yemen and Libya
during the 1950s and 1960s.
For now, though, the remaining monarchs are sitting on their thrones
fairly comfortably. After a rocky moment, even the king of Bahrain
seems to have won more time in power, thanks to support from the
royals in neighbouring countries.
This gives them a breathing space in which to reform – if they
choose to do so. Whether they will seize the opportunity is another
matter. At present, Morocco and Kuwait are the only two that look
as if they might, possibly, turn into constitutional monarchies with
accountable government. But if they don't change, their turn will
surely come.
Courtesy
| All rights reserved. |
| Ethio Quest News Together We Can Make It! |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Previous Stories Morocco Joins in, Defying Predictions
Mohammed Jamjoom (CNN) Opposition leaders detained amid protests in Djibouti... William Davison ban BBC Spirit of Egypt protest spreads to Yemen, Algeria and Syria Guardian Tunisia inspiring protests in Yemen, Algeria KWCH |
| Ethio Quest News: For latest Ethiopian News, views, Reviews and More |
| Related Stories Syrian troops storm Deraa, where uprising erupted Khaled Yacoub Will popular rebellions spread south of the Sahara? By William Gumede Four Ticking Time Bombs That Will Soon Ignite a Revolution (Richard Clark) UN human rights office voices concern at recent events in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria (UN News Centre) Libya exposes the African Union Dr.Michael J.K. Bokor In Search of an African Revolution
Gaddafi gets a taste of Arab anger Peter Goodspeed |
| The Maghreb Revolution; is it also an indictment on globalization? By Kiflu Hussain |
| Royal right … Saudi King Abdullah in conversation with Bahrain's king during a festival in April showcasing Saudi Arabian culture. Photograph: Str/Reuters |