For good or ill, change is coming to Egypt and Saudi Arabia soon

"That is why those regimes need to be encouraged to liberalise their countries’ economic and political systems further and turn them into places where change brings hope not fear."

Where has this magical, neoliberal combination worked so well? You can have political liberalization without throwing the country into a market-fundamentalist nightmare, where incomes stagnate and inequality grows that will only serve to fuel greater discontent and rumblings from the Islamic-right. Want examples of how this has worked well for the interests of The Economists prime constituencies, liberals and capitalists: Venezuela, Russia, Argentina, Bolivia, Turkey, etc. This ideological clap-trap of The Economist is so outdated, its laughable. Can we have a more enlightened discourse, especially after the last three decades utter failure?

The Western policy of supporting these regimes that have crushed any 'real left' option during the Cold War, opened the doors for the radical right to take the mantle of the anti-systemic ideology; albeit totally devoid of the progressive principles of the erstwhile left, and being less wiling to compromise, due to a lack of a common 'enlightenment' base. Thus, it seems that the only now left is dictatorship or radical Islam. Indeed, this is what happened in Algeria in 1992, Gaza in 2006, and it will happen again if it is allowed to.

In addition, the recent fad in governance is no longer the "Washington Consensus", or even the "Post-Washington Consensus", but the "Beijing Consensus". A terribly successful alternative that combines the authoritarian impulse with big-state capitalism. Remember, as Ha-Joon Chang argues, no developed country has developed with a full fledged democracy or with "free market" policies, and these countries have learned the lesson the hard way.

www.perspectivos.blogspot.com

The source of the instability in Arab regimes stems not so much from the lack of elections as from the power concentrated in the ruler. Neither Egypt or Saudi Arabia is a good candidate for transition to democracy, because any elected ruler would have too much power. He would be subject to the pull of whichever faction elected him, and liable to favor that faction, at the cost of stability in general.

For these arab regimes to transition to elected democracy, they must first establish some democratic institutions and individual rights, then devolve power away from the ultimate ruler. Creating a free press and establishing individual rights of association as well as employee rights prepares the electorate for elections. A powerful and fair judiciary protects those rights and the interests of small property holders from the ruling class. Spreading the legislative and executive power by strengthening a representative legislature and provicial governors with real power and responsibility makes the question of who holds the top job less crucial to the society. The strongest and most stable democracies generally have constitutionally weak rulers.

Creating a society that is ready for elections and the full democratic process is much harder than holding an election for a president. I hope that the next rulers of Saudi Arabia and Egypt move to establish the democratic institutions from the ground up. I don't encourage an immediate leap to free and fair elections. As we can see in Iraq and Afghanistan, simply holding an election does not create a free society. There is much more to it, and what is needed is the hard work on the ground to train and support judges, and to empower individuals in their everyday lives so that they feel they can make political decisions beyond simply supporting their faction leaders.

The next president of Egypt should strengthen parliament and give it real power, train and stand behind an independent judiciary, and allow free speech, a free press, and whatever peaceful associations people wish to form. After all that, in perhaps 10 years, hold a free and fair presidential election for a much diminished office.

The Saudi king should create a working parliament with a government headed by a prime minister, and transition to a constitutional monarchy, preserving a veto and the right to dismss parliament for the king. Crucially for Saudi Arabia, he should start distributing oil revenues as cash grants to citizens rather than as government provided services and jobs. A citizenry totally dependent on government largesse will never be ready to vote responsibly, or create a dynamic economy that can move beyond oil extraction.

Democracy requires many democratic institutions; elections are but one of them. Democratic reform in arab societies must first empower individuals rather than tribes, sects and factions. The state must be weakened with power diffused to many levels and away from the center. A leap to elections without institutional reform first will most likely result in chaos and conflict, and as such is irresponsible. But putting free and fair elections off a number of years makes all of the other reforms more urgent. A young and disatisfied populace must see concrete reforms happening to allow the leaders to continue ruling without a democratic mandate.

Religion should be a part of life, not govern it. So long as Arab nations are ruled by the Qur'an, they will be stuck in the middle ages.

Quite a shame really. They are truly intelligent, smart people with a lot of potential for success. That said, they are the only ones that can help themselves. A good start, would be to weed out all the scum that give them a bad, mistrusting reputation.

At last, the support the west provided for these dictatorships have come home to roost

Nothing is permanent other than change. In most of the countries in the Arabian Pennisula vast majority are illiterate and light of civilization is yet to reach. However, with the advancement of science and technology it is no longer possible to cut the people of what is happening around? Indeed they had Babylonian and similar civilizations but could not do much. And the tribal rulers in those countries in the interest of securing uninterrupted supply of petroleum oils were patronized by the industrial western nations ruled in mediveal ways. Many of these rulers were overthrown by their own created military. They in turn in order to ensure long reign undertook some development plans. When the world is changing fast how can this trick work longer? The old feudal system has outlived its utility. I recall the discussion of a Lybian diplomat in the mid 70's he used to say when there is out break of Cholera anywhere does it remain restricted within borders. Thats what is happening now.

Don't fix what ain't broke.

It's broken!
Fix it!

Dynastic Arab regimes are necessary as the source of the stability for the region, which has never been known for democracy.

What the world needs is for the Arabs to have a secure confident power transfer (e.g.: Crown Prince => King) that is supported by all the other power families. The House of Saud can and does provide this trusted level of continuity.

The problem with Egypt is that Mubarak succeeded Sadat. Mubarak also had the support to continue by the Egyptian populace and its military. Insofar as I am aware, Egypt has no one who can 'step in' in the event of Mubarak's demise. Therefore, Mubarak's lasting legacy might best be achieved in having Egyptian continuity through a publically acknowledged chosen successor.

Ah the brotherhood. The CIA has a file on them a mile long that this author does not know about! Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!!

liberal democracies are for the west; if the only way to achieve stability in an Arab country is with an oppressive despot then so be it.

The Saudi's could certainly use a decent criminal code. But the need for an educated and motivated populace is probably even greater.

I spent some time, a few years back, in a large data center in Saudi Arabia. (It served a government ministry, actually.) The management staff was all Saudis, and they were great guys who knew what they were doing and did it well. But the extremely competent technical staff were all ex-patriots (from around the world).

I have found that in most data centers, the Operations staff are the the folks who know the most about how the place works and what needs to be improved. But in this data center, the Operations staff (all Saudis) appeared to know little or nothing. They also appeared to do little or nothing. In short, they had a "job" which consisted only of showing up and collecting a pay check.

And that seems to be typical of Saudi Arabia. The elites work reasonably hard, and are competent. But the masses are no different than the worst far-right Western images of welfare recipients -- no work, no skills, no motivation, no interest. Which is why the non-oil economy is minimal -- and what there is, e.g. small retail establishments, is all done by ex-pats as well. When the oil runs out (and there is no money to pay ex-patriots or to buy off the populace), there will be nothing to fall back on. I can easily see it going the way of Somalia, albeit with more weapons and ammunition, at least initially.

What the Economist thinks should happen is just a wish-list. Why would any of the participants follow this course? Democracy only has any sense with an educated electorate and rules by which the electorate agree to adopt in the main.

This means none of this will happen. We should be discussing what is likely to happen not a fictional Utopia.

"...has long been poorly.."??

STOP THE PRESSES *** BREAKING NEWS ***

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have old rulers.

Does this deserve a cover story?

Ten years from now, oil will probably be 200 dollars a barrel and the regressive sons of bitches will have even more power.

What a silly, dreamy article. Our universal western prescription of "democracy for all" is really starting to sound like a broken record. While democracy does loosely correlate with better living standards, there plenty of desperately poor democratic states around the world. And I can think of few places more poorly suited for democracy than the Arab states. Yes, they need many things - legal rule, human rights, education, etc, etc. Will they get them before the oil runs out over the next 50-80 years? Probably not. At which point, they can happily cary on with the same life style they have enjoyed since the coming of Mohammed in the 7th century.

Nice, precise and concise.

From Northern Africa to Saudi Arabia to South Asia, for 2,000 years this entire region has rarely seen prolonged period of peace. You can blame a lot of it on religion but the truth is slavery and savagery came even before religion in this region. At some point you have to wonder if Arabs/Parsis/Turks/South Asians are just quarrelsome people by nature who can't find peace if it hits them in the face. As Iraq post Saddam taught us, only ruthless dictators can maintain peace in this region. The US needs to completely ween ourselves of energy dependency on this region and simply GTFO before this whole region comes crumbling down.

In Oil rich Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries the rulers have enormous wealth and with it comes enormous power. I will bet You will never see a British style monarchy till the oils well dry up (for decades to come).
Dont expect any uprising from the locals as they are well paid (thru big salaries) and privileges all coming from the rulers portion of oil wealth. And if that isnt enuf there are the US bases in these countries who in times of crisis could and will act as personal bodyguards to the ruler and his sultanate.

All the west needs to do is let exchange students party, learn, discuss and think without shame, double standard, disease and down-looking a couple of years. Protect and respect them during this period and send them home before they fully satisfy their appetite. Don't let them do stuff only in other lands, not with their own people.

Let them learn also about other stuff than neo-con dreams, including pagan cultures, Marxist approaches, methodologies and alternative cultures. Even if they want to learn some science and finance, don't let them get away with close minded, but somewhat useful skills.

And don't go bomb them from a safe distance after wards please, it doesn't help anyone.

No problemo !! All you need is to download about 400 years of Enlightenment thought and attitudes and everything will be A-O.K. These are backward and despotic peoples because obviously the governed like it that way . Or perhaps , they just never heard of 1688 , 1776 and 1789 . It takes some courage to get off your knees but that seems to be missing . I wonder , Why ??