Monarchical rulers constantly have challenges that not only threaten their survival but also the scope of their power, as exemplified by the famous Shakespeare quote, “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown”. The Middle East in the last 15 years has been a great example of this with the Arab uprisings that began in 2011, spreading across the region like wildfire. The monarchies of the GCC, Jordan, and Morocco were plagued with these revolts just as much as the rest of the region and were faced with the complex nature of putting to ease the resistance while maintaining their legitimacy and control which relies on limited political liberalization and democratization.

To understand how these monarchies can confront such uprisings, it’s first important to understand the challenges that this regime type is specifically plagued by. Monarchies establish their people as subjects rather than citizens which means that the people are less passive and have less power over the governing of their nation. As a result, there is little room for public opinion in the monarchy as it can allow for budding unrest. Monarchies also rely on a balance between coercion and legitimacy to rule, emphasizing a system of patronage and repression. This patronage is especially true in the GCC, which are dynastic monarchies, known for the distribution of the ruling family throughout all levels of bureaucracy and institutions and thus have dynamic control of government. Patronage is specifically destructive regarding the recent youth bulge in which younger, more qualified individuals are being passed over for positions in favor of the family members who support the regime, stirring dissent. The lack of civil society among these institutions has made it easier to keep these brewing protests in check, however, the emergence of new media is a growing threat as it provides not only a new platform for engagement and political discussion for subjects but also the sharing of ideas beyond state borders. This is exemplified in the Feb20 Movement in Morocco on Facebook before the uprising in 2011 as well as the February 14 Movement in Bahrain that was primarily organized through various forums frequented by youth activists. Individuals with no prior activist experience suddenly had a platform. Additionally, new media, including television, allows people in these monarchies to see the uprisings already happening in other nations, exemplifying the demonstration effect. In Morocco, what started as 6 women protesting during Ramadan under the page MALI in 2009 grew into a virtual community that, at times, called for reforms as radical as overhauling the regime. Together, Feb20 was able to organize protests in multiple cities, and network with established senior activist institutions and tens of thousands of people. Altogether, new media is a new enemy that these monarchies have to use their coercion and patronage to control and was one they were wholly unprepared for in 2011.

Despite the obvious gaps for dissent that these monarchies face in MENA, they have developed a variety of tools to manage them since their founding and the birth of the Arab Spring. It’s important to understand the difference between monarchies in the region as it can often sway how they handle the issues. As mentioned, the GCC are dynastic monarchies however, Jordan and Morocco are linchpin monarchies in which the monarch takes a step back from politics by electing a prime minister and cabinet. Both types of monarchies rely on similar methods, meaning repression, waiting out the revolts, and compromise, however, they go about them slightly differently. Linchpin monarchies like Jordan and Morocco may have cabinets and prime ministers, however, these government officials are very much still in the King’s pocket as he determines the extent of their power, thus having them act largely in his favor. However, during the uprisings, these Kings were able to use the cabinet as a sort of shield for plausible deniability, pushing off the responsibility for the issues of revolt to the other officials in the eyes of the public. Additionally, they would set up committees to review the Constitutions in the name of reformation, however, little reform would be done. This was seen in Morocco when King Mohammed VI created a committee of 18 loyal civil servants to preside over the constitutional reforms. These committee members would then continue to compromise with the activist group’s claims against the constitution to keep the King’s power strong. After so many compromises, there would be very little change and Mohammed’s power remained largely unchecked while he could claim that reform had in fact been made. The new media was used to his advantage as well, as compromising took so long that the subjects were able to see the violence in the other arab nations that had revolted and chose to diminish their own activism. Repression was used in moderation in these nations, namely in the large protests, however, violence was less pronounced. 

The same cannot be said for the dynastic monarchies of the GCC, which did not have a cabinet or prime minister to shield the monarch from responsibility. As a result, the monarchs relied heavily on repression in shutting down the movements, as exemplified in Bahrain at the Pearl Roundabout which was razed on March 18th as 2500 troops from the GCC joint military force moved into the state to violently repress the remaining revolters (as seen in the image). Today the Pearl Roundabout is a distant memory with no concrete existence as it became a symbol of resistance. Before repression became a full-force effort, the monarchs relied on dialogue to try to appease the subjects. They often would use the idea of “I hear you” and the promise of reform to slow the revolts, yet very little actual change was enacted. However, they were successful enough and this, once again, allowed the protests to die down as activists saw the brutal results from the other Arab Springs. Essentially, these tools of coercion/patronage, violence, and the use of legitimacy and power to postpone real change are the strongest in the monarchical arsenal at limiting unrest among the people, allowing them to overcome the various challenges that historically have presented themselves.

Work Cited:

Khatib & Lust Chapters 6 & 7, 172-235

Russell, Lucas. 2004. “Monarchical Authoritarianism: Survival And Political Liberalization In A Middle Eastern Regime Type” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36, 1: 103-119