The outsize role of the ruler’s families provides a commonality in many of the Middle Eastern countries experiencing upheavals in 2011. In Tunisia, the dictator’s wife and her brood inspired much anger. But in most cases, rulers wanting their sons to succeed them shakes their rule:
-
Egypt: The military men who ruling in Cairo since 1952 took it askance when Hosni Mubarak prepared the way for his banker son, Gamal, to succeed him.
-
Libya: Mu‘ammar al-Qaddafi’s seven sons, some of which hoped to follow him, feuded among themselves and exacerbated hatred for the regime.
-
Yemen: Ali Abdullah Saleh filled the government with relatives and wanted his son Ahmed to succeed him, an aspiration that aroused opposition, especially from the tribes.
-
Syria: Hafez al-Assad did succeed in having his opthamologist son Bashar succeed him, only for Bashar’s ineptitude to prompt the regime’s worst crisis ever.
In addition, Saddam Hussein of Iraq worked assiduously to have his sons succeed him, which contributed to his vanity, misrule, and ultimate demise.
Is this leading up to a Bush 41 & 43 post?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseinteresting that somehow saudi arabia has made it work. would love to hear your thoughts on why they are the exception in the region.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps that is because there is no doubt about hereditary succession in a monarchy? The generally higher stability of Arab monarchies compared to Arab Presidential Republics still seems to be holding true, for reasons that are rather mysterious to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it's pretty obvious. Jordan, Morocco, the various smallish Gulf states and SA are all monarchies. There is a legitimate or at least logical rationale for having the son succeed the father that goes far back in human history.
The countries Mr. Pipes is discussing are all "republics," at least in name. What possible rationale can there be for hereditary succession to supreme power in a republic?
The root problem in these countries is that they have no real legitimate basis for the ruler's power. He wasn't elected, he doesn't rule by God's Grace. He generally came to power by a coup overthrowing his predecessor and has since held power by force.
Force is a wonderful way to take power but a considerably less effective way to hold onto it indefinitely. A ruler who takes power by force needs to find some way to legitimize his seizure of power and this has so far eluded these guys.
The other issue, of course, is the time factor. The Glorious Revolution in English history was not precipitated when James II violated the Constitution or converted to Catholicism. It was when he fathered a son, leading to the possibility of unconstitutional Catholic rule extending far into the future. Those English leaders who were willing to wait for James to die weren't willing to live indefinitely under a dynasty of his descendants. I suspect a similar dynamic in the Middle East.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse