I fear the masses there know what they don't like [and they are quite right], but don't know how to get they want.
Are they Austrian Economists? Will they instinctively grasp that they need economic freedom and everything else will follow?
I doubt it. My guess is they will want to "soak the rich", or "give everyone his fair share".
Sigh.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, received an email from Khelil Bouarrouj, a Tunisian-American libertarian, disagreeing with his pessimism of what is to follow in Tunisia:
While Tunisia has never been a true democracy, the largely educated middle class in the nation is well-learned when it comes to the principles of a free society. The regime’s authoritarianism does not speak for the courageous Tunisian lawyers, activists and students; along with the general professional class. Tunisians know what a free press looks like. They’ve seen it around the world when they travel and social networks have served as a dissident channel. And let me add without hyperbole that on Saturday Tunisians awoke to a free press. The usually propagandistic state television changed its logo (which was a regime ensign) and became a voice for free debate with call-ins from average Tunisians. The private media was hosting panel discussions and it was stunning: people have shaken off the fear, and educated journalists and other civil society individuals were openly debating and discussing a whole host of issues. The newspapers that were published that morning ceased with self-censorship, and their coverage and editorials became free forums. A casual reader and observer of the press/media would conclude that it is dominated by a liberal social class with strong democratic values and articulation. In short, the past absence of an institutionalized free press does not mean that Tunisians do not understand the merit of free debate and differing voices. They always have and needed only the opportunity to breathe, which they have now seized.
This lesson, I believe, applies to democracy as well. The fact is that liberal social norms have been ingrained in Tunisian culture: a secular state, equal rights for women, higher education, religious tolerance, etc. I do not state this as a patriot, who has certainly been emotionally moved in recent days, but as an observer who has numerous family and friends in the nation and been engaged in countless political discussions.
The images of the protesters themselves tell a story. Unlike in other Arab nations, the opposition was not uncouth Islamists but a liberal middle class and students. The demonstrations at colleges had Arab youth spell out the word freedom (which was widely evoked during the month), and this was not just a slogan but a genuinely understood ideal. The nation is ready to be a true democracy and truly entrench democratic values. The cultural ethos is already democratic and this is what led to the protests, defining their voice and even the demand that the transition government adhere to the very letter of the constitution. After the president fled, the prime minister took over but Tunisian lawyers immediately declared it unconstitutional (as it was), along with buzzing messages on Facebook by the newly energized populace, and within hours the premier handed power to the speaker of the parliament according to the constitution. The high court has declared that elections shall be held in 60 days per the constitution as well.
Tunisians wanted to start off right with respect for the rule of law. And that’s just it: this nation has been democratic at heart; the recipe for democracy if you will, and the rule of law is understood, respected by Tunisians and had been upheld even under the past regime with the obvious exception of the corrupt and now dethroned ruling elite. Tunisians precisely threw them out because of their repressive rule and flagrant abuse of the law. And the fact is that the people are so committed to a free, democratic Tunisia and the rule of law that they did not acquiesce to an unconstitutional transfer of power, even though they had achieved their main objective of expelling the president and the premier was going to reign solely as a temporary president until elections are held.
Again: people wanted to start a new dawn without compromise on the rule of law. It is no trivial matter that even in the excitement and shock of victory people still thought about the constitutional provision and demanded it be respected. One may have believed that the people would have been elated and surfeit to achieve a monumental victory, unprecedented in the Arab world for a popular revolt to bring down an Arab tyrant, and not bothered with a provision, which would appear to be minor in context of the historic day and new beginning, and which is ultimately inconsequential since the caretaker would leave after elections. But they were not, and that speaks volumes. I have been glued to Facebook updates, the best pulse of the nation right now, and after the premier assumed power Tunisians immediately noted that this is unconstitutional and began to demand his removal. Tunisians wanted the constitution to be respected from Day One and it was the people who made it happen, again. On Facebook, the sentiment is unanimous: a clean break with the ruling party, respect for the rule of law, free and fair elections, and upholding the constitution. After such a dear victory, the widely heard pronouncement is that the people will not be complacent and are ready and willing to eagerly guard their rights and see to it that a democracy worthy of its name will be planted in Tunisia.
After Friday, the Tunisia people have earned with great sacrifice their freedom, and the people are determined that their God-given rights shall not slip an inch and are closely watching the transition as the proverbial vanguards of liberty, and the people will see to it that their hope will be made concrete. The nation is ready and while no democracy is perfect and all democracies are often in a state of oscillation, Tunisia is the best bet and hope for the Arab world’s first real liberal democracy. And I believe it will be a model for the rest of the region.
TY Gero.
Note that free enterprise and small govt werent mentioned in that email.
Democracy is OK, rule of law is good, free speech is great, but I'm still not sure they get it.
However, I am more optimistic than before your post.
BTW, do you think the lawyers in the USA will ever lead a revolution?
Sounds exactly like the standard rhetoric of civil rights activists looking to copy the good ol' welfare-warfare model.
where do you see welfare warfare?
This is social democrat speak.
My only thoughts: Democracy seems to be sweeping the Arab world, and the US occupation of Iraq has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Waste of money, lives, and capital, anyone? I think so.
Political Atheists Blog
The Egyptian Government just turned off the internet.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
I remember when some city rebelled in Syria a few years back. They were basically wiped off the map. Good luck Suez.
They are going from bad to worse. The answer to authoritarianism is not democracy, but local autonomy or, at the very least, monarchy. Tunisia and perhaps Egypt and Yemen too will now degrade into pseudo-socialist failed states. Just how much of that the dumb masses will take before turning to either an islamist dictator or an authoritarian (secular) leader, that is to be seen.
Things do not look good. Perhaps 2011 will be for the middle east what 1918 was for Europe.
I have predicted for many years that Egypt is the real ticking timebomb of the Muslim world and many agreed with me.
A measure of how bad things truly are can be gauged by this: on Wednesday Gamal Mubarak, Osni Mubarak's second son, arrived in London on a private jet with his whole family and tons of luggage. Hosni Mubarak, now 83, has been trying to push his youngest as his successor for the past few years. Gamal is deeply unpopular and there's little doubt he either fled the country himself or was sent to a safe place by his father. Either way his chances at becoming the new "Pharaoh" are becoming slimmer and slimmer. This also means things are getting nastier than the press says: either Mubarak is ready to give in to at least some demands or he's preparing to drown the protests in blood.
Problem is a heavy handed approach could buy some time but it risks provoking a blowback of immense proportions: any action by Mubarak would look like being inspired or at the very least approved by Washington and we all know how much people in that part of the world already love the US. The Israelis, with their typical arrogance, say there's no immediate risk and Mubarak will "easily" be able to crush the protests. They are probably right. But don't be surprised if in a year or so somebody blows up an airliner or a train station screaming "Death to America!".
The Soviet empire ended when revolutions took place in its client states. Is this the death-knell of the American empire?
Smiling Dave, I know of nothing in North African, Middle Eastern, or Meditteranean culture that condemns huge accumulations of wealth, and indeed, cities like Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar, Riyadh.etc are areas notorious for decadence and hedonism among both the general population and the rich, with much value given to material things like fancy cars. (I find it repulsive, to be honest)
With the kind of generous subsidies they have in Libya, the Libyans don't even seem to care who is rich, provided they can get some cheap fuel for their car and cooker. If we have to go even further east, ordinary Iranians have no popular anger against rich Iranians, because they too get nearly 90% subsidies on many things they buy.
Oil money earned by the state is an obvious reason for such countries not wanting to "soak the rich". "Soaking the rich" seems to be a purely western concept, where a household earning yearly $50,000 (100 times that of an African household) is angry that there are households earning $1,000,000, so it's unfair for western people to be materially well endowed when other western people are materially very well endowed.
Man this thing is advancing rapidly... today whole police units refused to charge the protestors. Hundreds of policemen have already deserted and joined the raging crowds. Egypt's much vaunted security apparatus is crumbling rapidly. But Mubarak has one ally left: the army. Infantry units have already deployed in Alexandria, Suez and The Cairo. In the meantime the Internet has been disabled in the whole country, as well as cellular phone networks. Mubarak is playing the last gamble of his life: ordering the army to crush the protests may save his regime for the few years he has left but could have catastrophic results. Millions (not just Muslims) are watching al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya. The Internet may be disabled but true reporters are managing to keep the news coming. If the army fires on the crowd everybody will see what "friends" the US has. We may be well start seeing the end of the Pax Americana.
Allow me to spend a few words about that old fox, Mohammed El-Baradei. His arrival in Egypt was perfectly timed and he put himself in a position to be seen both as a popular hero and a true friend of democracy. Yet while he was living abroad in confort at everybody's expenses (UN), the Muslim Brotherhood was doing the dirty job on the ground, enduring the beating, the jailing and the torturing and building a vast network of sympathizers through their charities. Problem is the Muslim Brotherhood is too... Muslim for the West's liking. El-Baradei is instead a soft-spoken UN scoundrel who may be perfect to lead a "transition" government should Mubarak do the only sensible thing: cut and run.
Believe me, the Egyptians would be much better off having the Muslim Brothers running the country than a former UN mandarin.
Kakugo, the BBC has reported that protesters have been chanting for the army to intervene today, believing them to be allies against the police forces. This was also just posted:
Merlin: They are going from bad to worse. The answer to authoritarianism is not democracy, but local autonomy or, at the very least, monarchy. Tunisia and perhaps Egypt and Yemen too will now degrade into pseudo-socialist failed states. Just how much of that the dumb masses will take before turning to either an islamist dictator or an authoritarian (secular) leader, that is to be seen. Things do not look good. Perhaps 2011 will be for the middle east what 1918 was for Europe.
Agree here. I think that they one gang will change with the other gang and will all be the same. Also, US wouldn't let them to become more free than they are now. I mean, something related to free market society is a dream, impossibility.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I mean, something related to free market society is a dream, impossibility.
With the current mindset of 90%+ of the world population, it certainly is!
"They are going from bad to worse. The answer to authoritarianism is not democracy, but local autonomy or, at the very least, monarchy. "
Seems like you're jumping the gun. What is 'local autonomy'?
Many Arab states have monarchies. Not much benefit or difference, if not being absolutely terrible: ala Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait. How exactly are these countries 'answers' again?
" the BBC has reported that protesters have been chanting for the army to intervene today, believing them to be allies against the police forces."
That's our 1.3 billion dollars per year in tax dollars at work. Let's hope it doesn't just mow down the whole city.
I assume they pay for their own police forces. If so, if the military fights the police, it's almost like Americans are fighting their police.
If they kill everyone, it's almost like we killed everyone.
What is 'local autonomy'?
Full autonomy for Egyptian cities and towns. Cairo and Alexandria need not have the same laws and taxes. Turn Egypt into a NATO-like military alliance of sovereign cities and regions, with a British Commonwealth-like honorary joint head of state.
Need I say any more?
Pleas note that the ME has an ‘abnormal’ concentration of some of the wealthiest countries per capita. All monarchies.
Neither Tunisia, nor Egypt or Yemen, the current revolutionary countries, are monarchies. All where in the past, to my knowledge. Egypt, above all, was on the brink of becoming a near eastern hegemon and displace the Ottoman Empire (hadn’t it been for Russian intervention)under its former dynasty, while Nasser only managed to send his troops to help Israel test its new army. All three are poor and unstable. Not one of the regional monarchies is either.
So, I see a BIG difference between republics and monarchies in the region.
Other than UAE and Saudi Arabia, which get by on oil money and slave labor, all those other countries are dirt poor. Give me a break. All the monarchies and 'republics' are way under European countries with democracies. Germany literally has a GDP 10 times that of Saudi Arabia. 3 times more than the entire Arab league. Egypt and Algeria are wealthier than Kuwait, Oman, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and Qatar. Even with nominal democracies which they have yet to even try.
Rank Country GDP (millions of USD) 2009 - World 57,937,460 - Arab League 1,624,042 1 Saudi Arabia 369,671 2 United Arab Emirates 229,971 3 Egypt 187,954 4 Algeria 140,848 5 Kuwait 111,309 6 Morocco 90,815 7 Qatar 83,910 8 Iraq 65,838 9 Libya 60,351 10 Sudan 54,677 11 Oman 53,395 12 Syria 52,524 13 Tunisia 40,168 14 Lebanon 33,585 15 Yemen 25,131 16 Jordan 22,929 17 Bahrain 20,214 18 Palestine 6,641 19 Mauritania 3,029 20 Somalia 2,763 21 Djibouti 1,049 22 Comoros 532
Why wouldn't it be an answer to switch to democracy again?
And that's just a picture of Dubai which has only developed recently. All the other Arab countries have full cities which look more or less like that, monarchy or not. And did so much sooner than 1990. Their improvements the same. I don't see how this picture is proof of monarchy or anything else. And Dubai had a monarch before 1990. Which caused that first picture. And other than construction, all of these monarchies are a nightmare in terms of liberties. This is mainly what I am talking about in them not being an 'answer'. They don't even have the benefit of being 'autonomous' either, whether to the world or within. So I don't see how your wish for autonomy is in any related. On the one hand you're saying they shouldn't have to pay taxes or follow laws. On the other hand, you're saying one person over a large geographical area should order them to pay taxes and do work for his benefit per his own laws.
I think you are just projecting Hoppean dogma onto this situation. And worse in a very cynical manner. They can't have free markets or libertarianism, so let them be serfs to monarch who can force them to build big cities on oil money. As if their only demand is faster city building.
Revolutions are very dangerous. Popular revolt may get rid of a broken regime, it can also quickly turn power over to genocidal maniacs. This is why free countries are made by pioneers and not by politicians.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
We should remember that Egypt already tried the nationalization road in the past. In 1956 they nationalized the Suez Channel (leading to Operation Musketeer, which was a resounding military succesful but a complete political failure) and in 1963 Nasser nationalized the whole Egyptian economy following looming bankruptcy caused by years of bad economics and precipitated by intervention in the Yemen civil war. This was such a blow that it required years (and massive foreign aids) to recover: those entrepreneurs (be them Muslims, Copts or Jews) who hadn't left when King Farouk was overthrown fled now. Most of them were left penniless since Nasser, ever the good Socialist, had seized all their assets. No wonder he was made a hero of the Soviet Union. In laters year Nasser tried to lure at least some of them back by forcing the chief theologicians at the Cairo mosques and religious schools (widely respected in the whole Muslim world) to issue a fatwa proclaiming all "heretical" Muslims, like Shiites, Druzes and Ismailites to have become "reconcilied" with Sunni orthodoxy. Few if any did bite the hook and Saudi Arabia, both as the traditional defender of Sunni Orthodoxy and opponent to Nasser's "secular" agenda, was suitably enraged. When he was forced to leave power after suffering a massive stroke his successor, Sadat, immediately set upon a vast program of "de-nationalization" to try breath some fresh air into the country.
A particular area of concern is the fact that corruption is very widespread in Egypt: in countries like Tunisia and Libya most of the nation' wealth is concentrated in the hands of the ruling familes. In Egypt there are many who stand to lose their cushy jobs and high profits if, say, Mubarak is forced to flee the country and the Muslim Brotherhood will take over. Most of the factories in Suez or Alexandria are owned by people with deep connections to Army generals (Egypt has a very long tradition of the military running the country, Mubarak being just the last of a long line), powerful bureaucrats and high ranking members of the NDP. They have much to lose and won't go down quietly.
In the meantime we are witnessing the West being completely caught pants down. They expected Mubarak to keep the status quo forever: perhaps they expected him to live forever or to rule from the grave like Kim Il-Sung. They knew perfectly well about how brutal their chum was: CIA actually outsourced torture of "terrorists" to the Egyptians. Yet they kept showering him with money and strongly encouraging tourism, a good source of hard currency, to the last minute. People in the Arab world are literally shocked the Economic Forum is meeting in Davos to talk about Global Warming while their world is burning. They are shocked EU and US officials are treating this crisis like nothing more than nuisance instead of responding more strngly, for example by asking Mubarak to step down or to give in to demands.
About the military. It's amazing how the brutal Egyptian police melted away in a matter of days. Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya reported that today very few, if any, policemen were seen in the streets of Cairo. The army is keeping a very strange aptitude: they are just staying there guarding buildings, doing nothing. Military is very well regarded in Egypt (hence the enthusiastic greetings) and traditionally speaking they don't regard policing the streets as their duty. I suspect the high ranks are carefully monitoring the situation to see where the wind is blowing.
Either way I think the West will have some more problems on their hands by the year end.
Kakugo: Either way I think the West will have some more problems on their hands by the year end.
The west, or poor Israel? Great post, as always!
In my opinion, it is very unlikely that they will go to becoming like Saudi Arabia in government. Even if the Muslim Brotherhood and Copts probably don't want democracy in the long run. Democracy being incompatible with minorities like Copts... and Sharia Law. Though, I think Copts do not like this government either. But maybe fear it toppling since they might be screwed in the case of instability in changing governments (and in most likely in the final government: whether it is monarchy, democracy, an Islamist dictator, etc.). Remember that Algeria in the 1980s was able to counter Afghani-style Islamism in the wake of revolution, though their revolution has still yet to pan out to anything yet. There is a chance of these people sneaking in and a history of this occuring in North Africa, but there is also a history of resistance.
Most of the Egyptians I have spoken to are highly religious, but have few problems with Western or American culture. In fact, I am surprised at their knowledge and openness to American things. Even while at the same time hating Israeli aggression (which we are responsible for). Which is about at the level of Europeans, but without the snarky elitism I encounter among European thinkers. I suspect they will become like the paragraph above from the Tunisian.
Nothing about Mohamed Elbaradei seems different than the people who I have met. He is reasonable, smart, not particularly Islamist, knows the pulse of Egyptian society, etc. In fact, the Islamists are trying to slander him because his daughter is an 'agnostic' on facebook and there are some hot pics of her in a bikini on the web. Also, there is a picture of wine someone drank at her wedding. Pretty funny slander tactics, but also a bit sad. He looks like a very good hope.
I suspect they will become a mediocre democracy much more broad sets of rights and involvement among the citizens. They will have to compromise with Copts and Islamists and other groups. Which is a good start. Though, the impression I get from Arabs is that they don't take for granted that the European models of government and infallibility are true. They are skeptical of government as well as imperialism. Whether they are secular or religious in their beliefs. You can't get any European to criticize government unless it isn't giving them money or pensions. But the same isn't true of Arabs. When you have countries that are so tightly controlled, you tend not to take for granted how important mobility and trade and markets are. The only thing I can think of is that because of American aggression and puppetry in the region, we may have discredited relatively free markets the way we have almost completely discredited secularism in their eyes. Though, as I said... talking to Europeans is like talking to a door. While talking to Arabs is usually more fruitful and enlightening, in my experience.
But remember that Europe, as well as America, started with democracy that granted pretty free markets in order to grow itself and its society too. And only later switched more socialist-y systems as they had the wealth enabling them to rest on their laurels. It may be that new and free governments pull them out of the last century. And then only later do they become like Europe is today. On the other hand, by the time they get there, the European governments will have crashed. And that route will seem like a deadend by then.
@John Ess,
1.Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain look poor to you? Throwing in GDP figures is cool, but you know what’s cooler? GDP per capita! Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE are ALL richer than Germany.
So in general I see the ME as the clearest proof of Hoppe’s theory of Monarchy vs. democracy.
The other countries are indeed less free than a western might like, but you must know that the local population in, say Saudi Arabia, hates the King because laws are not strict enough! By their religious standards, Saudi Arabia is a capitalist heaven. So, let us keep in mind the population mentality before speaking of liberties.
I'd disagree with this. They hate the king because of the obvious american-backed support, the fact that the royalty outlaw everything under the banner of Islam but party up all day themselves with drugs, alcohol, prostitutes the usual thing- and the insane rulings by their judges which pass out death sentences like its 1999. It is the prison state. If we were to go by religious standards anyway- a capitalist heaven is much preferred- Muhammad was a merchant afterall. There probably are some that think a few laws aren't strict enough- but it'd be faulty to paint a simple picture of an entire population.
Merlin: Kakugo: Either way I think the West will have some more problems on their hands by the year end. The west, or poor Israel? Great post, as always! Ironically Israel would benefit from a Muslim government in Egypt: they could easily squeeze the US for more money and political support. They could even see a longtime ambition of theirs materialize: US military in the country. Israel has been lobbying for at least two decades to have the headquarters of the US Sixth Fleet (currently in Gaeta, near Naples) moved to Haifa. That would mean living directly under the US military umbrella. If there's a country that has a lot to lose in the area is Saudi Arabia. The Mecca may be the Holy City, but Islam has always had a special place for Egypt. It is by far the largest Arab-speaking country. Its universities and religious schools have always been the most prestigious in the Arab world. Its influence in the Arab culture is huge: just to give an example Egypt has the fourth largest movie industry in the world, after India, China and the US. We must also remember that up to the '30s Egypt had the incredible privilege of providing the kiswa, the embroided silk cloth which covers the Kaaba, the sacrest place of Islam. The privilege was briefly granted again in 1963 by King Faysal as a gesture of goodwill following the Yemeni Civil War. The mighty Ottoman Caliphs only acquired this privilege when the conquered Egypt in 1517 and lost it when Mehmet Alì became de facto an independent ruler in 1805. It was a huge blow to their already declining prestige. The problems the West face are huge. Should the Muslim Brothers come to power, we would be faced with a much less amenable leadership in a vital country (just one word: Suez Canal). A succesful revolution could ignite the whole area. I bet old Colonel Khadafi has his hands full right now: he allegedly promised 24 billions $ () to various poverty relief programs. He's much younger than Mubarak, being 68, but power and eccentricities have worn him down to a shadow of his former self. The charismatic leader is now a tired old man more concerned with squeezing money out of a decadent and ever-afraid Europe than listening to his own people. Gone were the days when he would live in a tent and listen to the people: he now lives a recluse surrounded by an all-female "pretorian guard". Turning into an US ally for the "War on Terror" after being a stalwart anti-US nationalist has destroyed his credibility. Failure to stop the thousands of immigrants pouring in from the south and to control his five sons has done the rest. Should Mubarak be replaced by another military strongman we would be able to buy some time which should not be wasted. Some "limited" reforms could appease the Egyptians and, if imposed upon other rulers, could help defuse the situation. Will be the West so farsighted? Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people | Post Points: 20
Saudi Arabia or Dubai are not free. I'm afraid you have been lied to. Unless you mean free to shop and deal as a multinational corporation. I never read the mandate to wear your burka or never show affection in public in the British common law. In fact, many Muslims consider the Saudis out of their minds. That is, the ones in the half-ass republics. I'm afraid you are playing homo economicus and representing only one aspect of society. That which leads to dollar signs. You see that they play with multinationals, and assume it is a free country.
I don't know where you get the statistics that Dubai doesn't have oil, either. Though, they do have money from tourism that they built on top. They are now running out of money due to calculation problem. Dubai is not a country like Egypt either and is just a part of the UAE. As for UAE, the main export is of course oil.
I checked IMF and then went to wolfram alpha's data. And found out some data. Correct it, if it is wrong.
Germany has a GDP per capita (PPP) of about 41,000 dollars. The monarchies are wildly uneven.
Saudi Arabia has GDP per capita of about 18,600 dollars; not very high. UAE combined is about 64,000 (though they don't count migrant slave workers). Kuwait about 54,000. Oman 18,000. Qatar about 89,000. Bahrain 28,000.
Looking at a graph over time, SA had a big year during 1980 of around 20,000... then a huge slump where it dropped below 10,000. Staying there for a decade and a half. And didn't recover until about the current year. Before 1970... it was pretty dismal. Hundreds or so like you'll read below about Yemen. Kuwait was about the same mediocre PPP of around 10000 until around 7 or 8 years ago. Qatar had the same trend as SA... a big year around 1980... then a huge slump... but they actually achieved exponential growth somehow 7 or 8 years ago.
Also, you are selectively choosing monarchies. All of these have lower or about the same PPP than Egypt ($2200) or Tunisia ($4000):
Morocco (2,800$) Jordan (3,900$). Morocco was about 1000 until very recently. Same for Jordan. In fact, the graphs look exactly the same as Egypt. Real poor until the last decade or so.
Yes, a lot of monarchies have high GDP and PPP, but that doesn't mean it is a one way ticket to paradise. On the one hand in terms of personal liberty, and on the other hand actual PPP or GDP. There is no way to know which type of monarchy they will get... one that is crap or one that hits the jackpot. And then there are the mediocre ones like SA with not much PPP or personal freedom. Even the 'good ones' seem to be unpredictable in the past and may be so in the future. I don't even know what accounts for the wealth in the monarchies entirely. I hate to go on numbers without further variables.
And can we add in other absolute rulers? I wonder if monarchy is not different in their opposition to democracy. Libya is around 14,000 for their absolute ruler; not terrible for an Islamic socialist. About the same as 'free market' of SA. Sudan with their genocidal dictator has 1300. Iran is 4000. Somalia... with their autonomy and warlords/kings together... eek out a measly 298.
Interesting update in Egypt- lack of police presence has forced people to set up their own security checkpoints and protect property due to all the looting. Listening to Al-jazeera people are saying "we don't need police we can protect our property and honor ourselves".
Again it is my impression too that SA is not free, yet what I’m trying to say is that even the mediocre amount of freedom they have is due to the royals swimming against the current of popular opinion. Plus, and it’s a big plus to me, I believe that western communities in SA are left to their own. I’m afraid that during day one of any ‘republican’ revolution in SA such western communities would be massacred.
As for Dubai, the rest of the UAE operates under Sharia, but Dubai, and here lies the genius of the Emir, is operating under English common law specifically provided by a retired British judge. If you can point to some reference of Islamic laws being enforced in Dubai, I’ll take it back.
You said that yourself, the UAE has oil, Dubai is barren desert. And the UAE is the only country which I’d consider a truly decentralized entity, as most of the power is exercised by the Emirates, not the union. Heck, Abu Dhabi even has its own military. When Dubai World went bust and the Emir refused to bail it out, the Union could not force him, but it took the Abu Dhabi Emir to put down his own money to bail it out.
So perhaps the success of the UAE is due to decentralization and not due to monarchy. Yet I don’t think monarchy hurts either.
Yes, a lot of monarchies have high GDP and PPP, but that doesn't mean it is a one way ticket to paradise.
Agreed. What I’m saying is that I see monarchies tending to produce more prosperity (or consume less of it). It is dependent on the personality of the King, but yet I myself would go with that over the ‘personality’ of the mob. The countries you mention are not evenly wealthy, yet the question is how much wealthier would they had been under republics?
Kuwait, the only rich country in the area that’s not an absolute monarchy, is trying to give more power back to the Emir after what they see as a dismal experience with democracy (if you like a link to an article, I can find one) and, specifically being under the impression of falling behind their monarchic neighbors.
My own country was far freer back with the King, and I’d like to have monarchy reinstalled (I’d love UAE0style decentralization even more).
Somalia... with their autonomy and warlords/kings together... eek out a measly 298.
Where did they start out in 1990? That is the question.
That entire region is just a circus on oil stilts.