The MENA region has an unusually high concentration of monarchies given the decline in monarchical rule throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Given the challenges the region faces including water and food insecurity, the resource curse, political pressures for economic and political liberalization, etc, monarchs in this region need to balance legitimacy and the degree to which the coercive apparatus of the state is used. Throughout this analysis we will discuss the important factors that have lead to the continuation of monarchical rule in MENA, as well as the greatest assets monarchs implement to face challenges and maintain control.
First let’s investigate how the facade of political liberalization can benefit monarchies in the region. In Monarchical Authoritarianism: Survival and Political Liberalization in a Middle Eastern Regime Type, Russell Lucas argues that, “the incompetence of the monarchs of the ancien regimes in managing socio-economic change led to their downfall” (Lucas 2004, 109). He argues that economic and social change brought about by “modernization” weakened state capabilities to respond to foreign policy concerns and economic development in times of crisis (Lucas 2004, 109).
This point is echoed by Ed Webb. Webb argues in his presentation, ” The Monarchies’ Responses to the Arab Uprisings of 2011″ that the KSA would permit women municipal councils and Salman would allow women to drive and reopened cinemas (Webb 2020). At face value this gives the appearance of reform and gradual acceptance of some western norms. However, this action was coupled with intense repression. Lucas argues that, “the prospects for political liberalization may be better than those for democratization. Political liberalization can be a useful survival strategy for authoritarian monarchies” (Lucas 2004, 117). Webb specifically references how monarchical regimes respond to calls for reform from citizens, such as community spending/investment plans like MBS Saudi 2030 or direct payments to families. This strategy of limited reform can be interpreted as an act of tanfis (letting out the air), using economic and mild political reforms as means of releasing pressure and calming the population.
However, there are different types of monarchical regimes that have differing levels of authoritarianism. In contrast to the KSA strategy of gradually releasing political pressure, regime type can determine the survival of the monarchy as well. For example, Lucas defines the sultanistic regime type as, “a regime characterized by personal rule unchecked by restraints, norms, or ideology. “Corruption reigns supreme at all levels of society” under a sultanistic ruler; the distinction between the state and the regime becomes “blurred.” In a sultanistic regime, thus, the ruler has an enormous degree of discretionary power, despite the narrow social base of the regime” (Lucas 2004, 104). This blurred distinction of the state and regime creates a suitable environment for corruption to thrive. This cult of personality can lead to intolerance of pluralism among social groups, and state action will treat the ruler’s ego and personality as a priority (Lucas 2004, 104).
Overall, there are many factors that lead to the sustainability of authoritarian monarchies in the region. However, with growing political pressure for liberalization around the world, how long will their survival tactics keep them standing?
Leave a Reply