What, in your view, are the most important factors that have challenged or continue to challenge the continuation of monarchical rule in MENA?
Monarchies in MENA rely on the maintenance of familial networks and cronyistic relations throughout different sections of the government in dynastic arrangements while political liberalization and social mobilization may be used in linchpin models to encourage reverence for and allegiance to the monarch. In my view, the authority of a monarchy in MENA is preserved through the distribution of gifts to key political allies in the military and private sector, the appeasement of competing royal family members through selective appointments, and either by coopting political groups and parties into the status quo or setting opposition groups against one another. With this in mind, I would say the most important challenges to the survival of monarchical rule in MENA would have to be the disappearance of a social base in linchpin monarchies and the spread of disunity among the royal family in dynastic monarchies. However, I also believe that growing calls for constitutional checks on monarchical power in general can become dangerous for regimes in which other perceived injustices may embolden activists such as police brutality, unjust trials, high consumer goods prices, housing insecurity, and so on. I mention this as well, because the erosion of a firm social base in a monarchy may occur when the approved political groups in a country lose credibility with the citizenry as a result of their inability to address pressing concerns. During the Arab Spring, the Feb20 protests and subsequent demonstrations in Morocco captured these demands and complaints, creating a movement that superseded groups friendly with the king and called on the government to confront the deeply patrimonial institutions that obstruct transparent governance.
What are the greatest assets that this regime type has in confronting such challenges?
Internal breakdown and the growing influence of outside groups pose direct challenges to monarchical rule. The most decisive factor in a monarch’s ability to resist calls for reform like those during the Arab Spring would be how well crony capitalist networks throughout and between the private sector and state bureaucracy functioned to solidify the dominance of elites. By exerting control over “the institutions of the state by distributing family members throughout the bureaucracy”, dynastic monarchies involve themselves in all levels of government while linchpin monarchies can also cultivate broad coalitions revolving around the monarch (Lucas 2o04). Thus, perhaps the best way to deflect concerns about civil liberties, human rights violations, or socioeconomic problems, may be to permit some form of political opening to produce a more pluralistic environment and placate calls for the inclusion of opposition groups, only to limit the influence of outside groups and pick friendly organizations to join the government. Monarchies can create the image of electoral integrity and economic liberalization to shore up international support, deflect internal criticisms, and preserve the status quo that keeps either a hand-picked elite coalition or a patrimonial assortment of royal family members happy.
Taken a step further, monarchies in the region can posture as if they are the defenders of minority groups within their kingdoms, portraying an attitude of inclusivity that can succeed in persuading the public that they are a noble, fair-minded ruler. In Saudi Arabia, the construction of the NEOM project has displaced many indigenous residents of the Huwaiti tribe which if left unaddressed could spark a humanitarian backlash against the project and prompt questions about the authority of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (Perrett 2022). However, the monarchy’s position as the protector of all “subjects in the kingdom” may function as a convenient rhetorical strategy for avoiding condemnation from human rights advocates and demobilizing calls for democratic reform based on this issue. Taking Morocco’s better handling of the religious tension between Arabs and Berbers in contrast with Algeria as an example, monarchies can implement policies that attempt to either genuinely protect indigenous or tribal groups or, more often most likely, faintly signal support for multi-tribal or ethnic identities, but fail to deliver anything materially (Lucas 2004). Potentially, an appeal to pluralism and multiculturalism may blunt any attacks from Islamist and secular opponents concerning the treatment of minority groups and the rampant levels of corruption and cronyism occurring in the government.
Another important asset that reinforces the unity of dynastic arrangements and can also insulate a monarch from military overthrow is the use of military spending within patronage networks and parallel structures. In this way, monarchies can uniquely create support for the institution through crony clientele agreements that enrich both state beneficiaries (advisers, officials) and elites from top families close to the monarch. The greatest threat to monarchies, in my view, appears to be internal disorganization and external dissent from the populace questioning not just the regression of democracy, but also the economic and political shifts that have greatly enriched capitalist interests and royal cliques. In addition to the coercive capacity of the state, the greatest assets that the monarchy has in countering political impulses for democracy or greater political freedoms are the institutional barricades that have been placed on many of the electoral and political systems of these countries which prevent the growth of opposition voices and genuine democratic engagement.
Leave a Reply