GULF MONARCHIES & IMMUNITY TO CHANGE

As the uprising in Bahrain had been crushed last month, and the protests in Oman lost momentum, the six GCC monarchies seem passing the general Arab awakening. In fact, they seem immune to any change that might lead to put in place what Winston Churchill referred to as the "least worst form of government". Ruling families in these six monarchies gained a dose of self-confidence, and pro-democracy forces in the Arab peninsula lost hope. So, what are the characteristics and compositions of these monarchies that make it immune to a democratic change? 

First, it is essential to understand the roots of the authority that the ruling families possess up to date. Most of the ruling families acquired the legitimacy of their leadership through tribal hierarchy in times when the population of the Arabian Peninsula was far smaller than it is today. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, the ruling families acted as local fiefdoms within the Ottoman Empire. When the Empire started to collapse, these tribal leaders came the tool to give legitimacy of the “protection” of British India, in return, British representatives to the region maintained the leadership of these families and drew the boundaries between them, those boundaries are the same of those of today. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, formed by conquest. The first King, Abdulaziz, expanded his domain from central Arabia to most of the peninsula. In the process, he displaced the ruler of the Hejaz in the west, Sharif Hussein, and gained the loyalty of the tribal leaders through battle and affinity in the four directions of what became later "the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". 

In the tradition of the Arabian tribes, loyalty to a ruler has never been unconditional. The leader of the tribes is acclaimed by a form of oligarchic consensus. This tradition still, till today, plays the role of forming and cementing leadership in the GCC monarchies, in addition to similar systems of personal loyalty. In the middle of the 20th century, and after discovering oil in the region, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia dramatically stepped up production, other Gulf states followed later, and the ruling families found themselves surrounded by wealth beyond their dreams. A further step change came in 1973, when King Faisal of Saudia Arabia anounced an oil embargo on most of the western hemisphere, in response to its support of Israel against Egypt and Syria, in the October war of the same year. The result was a tenfold increase in the price of oil, which led to massive development in the infrastructure. The increase in oil revenue and the massive projects added to the package of the Royals another system of buying loyalty, the system of commissions from foreign firms and businesses which rushed to the area mouth-watering for any stake in these projects. And to enhance this system, the ruling families maintained a full control of oil revenues far from the declared annual budgets of their states. And this leads to a crucial dynamic in society of the gulf states that later were copied across the Middle East. That of ownership. The ruling families believe that they own the wealth that comes out of the land they rule. A visitor arrives at any GCC airport, the first things to see will be portraits of the ruler and at least two of the most senior members of his family. You will find the same portraits in the streets, in hotels, in every government building, in company offices and in private offices of executives. 

This patriarchal ethos is a fundamental element that prevents the transformation of the GCC countries into democracies. an ethos that portrays the loyalty to the nation to come from the loyalty to the ruling families. Some might argue that this patriarchal ethos was the same in Egypt, Tunisia, and probably in all totalitarian regime. In shape, it is true. In form, it s far from it. If Egypt wins a football match, Mubarak is not congratulated, in the gulf states, ruling families is to be congratulated and the win will be advertised as the win of their wise leadership. The natural resources of Egypt or Tunisia does not go "legally" under the full control of Mubarak or Ben Ali. In the Gulf states, it is not just under the full control of the ruling families, it is widely accepted among the population.

In regard to the societies of the GCC states, the cornerstones have always been respect for family and elders, and belief in God. The implicit contract between the rulers and ruled is that the rulers will look after their people as a father would look after his family. The association of public development initiatives with ruling families has never been clearer than in Saudi Arabia, where universities, airports, research institutes and streets are all named after the current king, his family members and predecessors. That social contract has held strong for as long as the ruling families have kept their side of the bargain – provided for their people in terms of education, jobs, decent housing and the ability to raise families and have comfortable retirements. People may grumble at the wealth of their leaders, but provided they themselves are guaranteed the essentials of life, they have traditionally been happy to accept the bargain. 

In the GCC states, the notion of allegiance and loyalty is still intensely personal, where the ruler will often take and be accorded personal credit for the achievement of his nation. Gulf rulers have an active influence over all aspects of their subjects’ lives. In the other hand, people of the GCC states must understand that the bargain of "loyalty for providing" would be weaken as long as the population growth rate is high. Soon, The ruling families will find themselves ruling a population that is far big to be bribed. Then, dissent will grow. Moving to a constitutional monarchy needs a major change of mindset on the part of the rulers and the ruled.