The mountains here are solid rock, flint-colored jagged peaks slicing through the haze and dust of intensely hot days. The old Dhori family home is at the top of one unforgiving peak, a single room made of stone. No electricity, no water, a doorway as small as a window, one narrow dark room and a dirt floor.Read the whole thing.
That was what the Dhoris knew for generations. Then the present ruler of Oman, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, staged a coup against his father, and the Dhori family came down to the valley. Sultan Qaboos provided water and electricity, and over the next 39 years transformed a country that had been hermetically sealed into a modern state.
For the older generations, that is more than enough. But like the rest of the Middle East, Oman has a very young population, a generation that did not experience the deprivations of the not-too-distant past. They are generally educated and aware. They want political change, rule of law, freedom of speech, institutions, a voice.
As a whole, Oman is a rare success story in the modern Middle East, a nation that has managed to navigate the shoals of modernity while holding onto its traditional identity. It has oil wealth, but its people still know the value of work.
But it is also an example of why authoritarian systems, no matter how benevolent and right minded, eventually rub up against the human desire for justice and self-determination.
“For me, for my generation, there are a lot of ambitions,” said Said al-Hashmi, 32, the information and research manager for the State Council, one of two advisory bodies that were formed in place of a real Parliament. “My father, my grandfather, grandmother, they really appreciate this life. For me, I don’t appreciate it like that. We need civil life, we need more democracy or real democracy.”
Oman is experiencing the stirrings of discontent. It is not with Sultan Qaboos, at least not publicly, but with the government, whose officials declined to be interviewed for this article.
“The challenge now is to open the system and be more transparent and more accountable,” said Salim al-Mahruqi, a former Omani diplomat who runs the Culture Club, an arm of the Ministry of Culture. There is virtually no civil society in Oman; citizen organizations are all affiliated with the government. The university does not have a political science department. Only the sultan has the power to approve laws.
How would you rate the chances of democratic change in Oman, based on the kinds of things we have discussed (Boix, etc.)?
(cross-posted)
As the report says "they want political change" and as Mill has been referenced in lecture 8, if a people are ready or willing for democracy; then they will demand it. Yet the institutions practice non-democratic ideas. public organizations are not affiliated with the government and only the Sultan has the power to change laws; very common for monarchies.
ReplyDeleteOman is a country that fits well into Boix's model:
a) there are two key actors playing (rich and poor).
b) The rich participate in the politics of the country by working within the government; repressing the poor.
c) there is economic, material and ideological innequality: divide between rich and poor, rich own or control goods and ideological because the rich aren't held accountable for their actions within government.
Democratic change in Oman would come via external intervention or an internal revolution, not transitionally by the government. As the population is young, most will not have remembered the coup 39 years ago and, being educated and having access to international news and events, will be wanting to fashion a democratic government. yet the poorer, older population were provided with electricity and running water and have been reported to be happy enough with what the government has provided. therefore, the government need only to continue repressing the peoples who desire change to remain in power.
Repression is relatively cost effective in Oman, as the government does not have to pander to the demands of the selectorate in order to gain votes for remaining in power.
Likewise, revolution would be relatively cost effective for those who demand it. Although loss of property and life would be a definate, the (idealistic) end product would be state soveriegnty, representative government and democracy.