oops disregard.
A note on that: the restoration of democracy in Germany and Japan was much helped IMO by democracy not being touted by Allied leaders as the reason for invading Germany/forcing Japan’s surrender. Rather the reason for the occupation was collective self-defence (“You invaded - we invaded back”), and democracy a fortuitous byproduct. Thank God the Allies did not say “we made war on you for your own good, to give you democracy” - that would not have endeared the term “democracy” to Germans or Japanese.
I’ve just read the article in question and I find it slightly lacking. In the section on terrorism, it simply doesn’t mention repair. Remember how quickly the Kuwaiti fires were extinguished after the first Gulf War?
I also find this statement hard to swallow:
It was their choice to be corrupt. The West didn’t make Saudi princes sieze land or restaurants: the princes referenced chose to fund lifestyles by corrupt means and the monarch failed to control them. He mentions that Abdullah got some reformist ministers appointed to fight corruption but doesn’t detail results.
Perhaps these subjects are fully detailed in the book, but I don’t see them here.
Democracy in KSA is a touchy subject.
On the one hand, KSA needs to be stable. On the other hand, the people should not be supressed or repressed.
The House of Sa’ud makes sure that their reign is not threatened - now to the point of going after wayward Wahhabis and forcing others to tone down the rhetoric.
If we let the people decide, I’m afraid their decision will not please the world. It would basically be the last time there would be elections in the country: one tyranny would be replaced with another. What would make this tyranny even worse would be that it would become somewhat of a second Iran: a theocracy of sorts. (I wonder what similarities there are between how Wahhabis envision an Islamic state should be run and Khomeini’s Velayat-e-Faqih.)
I would venture to say that if Wahhabis took over, they would not be able control iconoclastic elements amongst them, potentially leading to more destruction of religious elements. Let us also not forget that there are a number of Shi’ites in the country; Wahhabis don’t like Shi’ites.
The best solution would be to replace the House of Sa’ud with a Hejazi (or Hashemite) house who would ruthlessly de-Wahhabize the Kingdom. After that’s done, slowly open the way for public participation.
As it is, having an autocratic rule is not always bad. Look at how stable, modern, and tolerant the United Arab Emirates has become. Democracy there is almost non-existent; but it’s very stable, and there’s a large amount of tolerance for people of different religions and races and cultures.
WRS
How could that be done? I know there are some unemployed Hashemite royalty (the old royal families of Iraq and Syria) in the ME, but how could they possibly build a power base within SA? And why would a Hashemite king “de-Wahhabize” the country? Wouldn’t it make more sense for him to convert to Wahhabism, as Henry IV of France converted to Catholicism?
As far as de-Wahhabization is concerned, the ruling House of Sa’ud and the dominant Wahhabi form of Islam both come from the same area of the Arab peninsula: the Najd. The former rulers of the Hejaz (most of the Arab peninsula, including the areas where Mekkah and Medinah are) were Hashemites; someone please correct me if I am wrong. As such, the “innovations” of Saudi royal rule and Wahhabi religiosity go against prior tradition. I say, let’s pull down these innovations and restore the Hashemites to power in the Hejaz, moving the capital from Riyaz in the Najd to Jeddah in the Hejaz. Although the tribes from the Najd will, no doubt, complain, we can simply tell them to give up their false version of Islam, recognize the true King of Arabia and Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines, and shut up because they’ve caused enough damage as it is.
A Hashemite King accepting or embracing Wahhabi Islam can be considered a betrayal of his Hejazi origins. As it is, most of Saudi Arabia’s problems are because of this horrid Najdi innovation.
Abdullah II follows, for the most part, in the footsteps of father. He is friendly to the West, non-violent towards Israel, tired (and wary) of the Palestinians, and moderate Islam-wise. As a legitimate Hashemite, he is a prime candidate to rule Arabia. The fact he currently rules Jordan should not be a problem: he can rule both states or abdicate in favor of a successor so he can rule Arabia.
If not him, Queen Noor of Jordan should become Queen of Arabia. Wow! Now that’s something that can cause a bit of a stir. The Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines - a woman! But it may be just the thing to be able to unseat Wahhabism or Islamic extremism.
In any case, such a scenario would require strong (if not brutal) force to quell an almost certain rebellion of religious extremists. If the Hashemite House can gain legitimacy in the eyes of the people, its work will be half done. As time goes on, other Muslim countries will recognize the new king on the throne - as long as he can keep things stable.
I am quite confident that Jordan (if one of the ruling House’s people is used to occupy the throne), America, Israel, Iran, and Shi’ites will support such an effort.
WRS - should I start a new thread about this? This is fun!
Who’s “we”?
“We” refers to those people who are in favor of and carrying out the replacement of the House of Saud with a Hashemite House.
WRS
And who would that be, apart from WRS? This is a cause I’ve never heard of before, and I try to follow ME politics pretty closely.