Is executive dynastic rule more stable when its bases go beyond a certain doctrine?
Mr Jeunot's lecture on Thursday was very insightful in the evolution of monarchies/ dynastic types of rule. Saudi Arabia's dynastic evolution from tribal congregation to state itself gives much to think on how a widespread hierarchical consensus has been accepted. Monarchies outside of the Middle East are often limited, whether as constitutional or mixed monarchies, which brings out the question, what gives middle eastern monarchies the stability they are known for. Many would bring-in religion as a cause, I wouldn't trust that answer. Others bring devotion as a reason, this one also is doubtful for me. Religion and devotion do not generally keep citizens happy. Money does. As highlighted in the lecture, there is no income tax, but there is still for example free healthcare available for public servants. Oil has provided for all of this. Would Saudi Arabia's have survived if massive amounts of oil weren't discovered? We could look to a neighbouring country to find the answer. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy and it doesn't have an economy based on oil; does the money factor still apply? yes it does. Its currency is the fourth strongest currency in the world according to Forbes, and its economy, which is mainly subsistent, has been growing at a rate of 2.5 percent over a decade. All of this to say that countries which are doing well economically are more likely to keep their monarchies intact. However, we could expect that a country like Saudi Arabia, should its oil deposits disappear, would degrade the monarchy to a constitutional status as the virtue of its economic success would no longer be.
No comments:
Post a Comment