The Experience of Political Reform in the GCC States: Evaluation and Analysis

The Carnegie Endowment and the Gulf Research Center (GRC) organized a two-day workshop in Dubai to discuss recent developments in a number of Gulf countries and to analyze their significance in the overall process of political reform in the Gulf region.  The workshop, titled “The Experience of Political Reform in the GCC States: Evaluation and Analysis,” brought together experts, researchers, and political activists from the GCC States, the United States, and Europe.  The first Carnegie-GRC meeting, held in September 2004, discussed issues that affect political transformation in all countries of the region.  The second workshop looked more closely at the process of political change in specific countries, with a focus on the domestic factors driving the reform process, how far the transformation has progressed in different countries, and how it is likely to unfold in the short and medium term.  To a lesser extent, the workshop also considered the impact of external factors such as the Iraq crisis and the US democracy agenda. 

On the question of whether the reform movement can be placed in an overall comparative perspective, participants emphasized the need to recognize the nuances of specific cases.  A single model of political change cannot be imposed across the Gulf region due to the diversity of the reform experiences.  For example, while Kuwait enjoys a vibrant political debate and vociferous demands for reforming electoral and political party legislation, other states such as Oman or the United Arab Emirates lack vocal demands for reform.   In formulating comparisons across the region, the high prices of oil and the tribal-oriented political culture were cited as obstacles to political reform in most countries.  Participants also agreed that there is a notable lack of consensus on the definition of political reform, what it entails, how it should be implemented, and what its consequences would be. 

In an attempt to analyze the salient domestic factors driving political reform, participants called for the elaboration of a more flexible concept of civil society.  Observers must expand standard definitions of political actors to include tribal structures and informal institutions.  Also, the interaction between organizations themselves (and not merely between organizations and the state) should be monitored to observe emerging rules of the game.  Participants differed about the potential role of the private sector in the reform process.  While some contended that the debate over privatization may lead to a new dynamics between states and the private sector, others dismissed the reformist role of the private sector.  All analysts agreed that it was important to follow closely evolving relations within the royal families, particularly in light of the increasingly relevant issue of succession in many countries.
 
Participants from the Gulf region acknowledged that the events of September 11 and the Iraq war have brought the issue of political reforms to the fore, but questioned the nature of the U.S. call for democracy in the region.  Many argued that the United States’ inconsistent policies have undermined rather than aided reform.  They asserted that the U.S. lacks a strategic vision for reform and therefore relies on ad hoc initiatives that are ineffective.  They also acknowledged that U.S. policy is highly variable and likely to change with a new administration.