Commentary
Larbi Sadiki
{
"authors": [
"Larbi Sadiki"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Egypt",
"Gulf",
"Levant",
"Maghreb"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform"
]
}
Source: Getty
Like Father, Like Son: Dynastic Republicanism in the Middle East
Democratic transition continues to elude Arab countries and Arab republicanism has lost much of its meaning, as presidential power is increasingly being bequeathed from father to son.
By Larbi Sadiki
Published on Nov 25, 2009
Arab autocrats have become quite skilled in public relations, mastering the language of democracy, human rights, and free markets while preserving old and arbitrary means of decision making. In the last ten years, Arab regimes have fallen into what could be referred to as “dynastic republicanism”—a form of government that translates roughly to an oxymoron: “monarchical presidency.”
Whatever outward appearances they project inside Arab regimes, republican governments come with no legal or historical guarantees. Family domination of Arab governments reduces states to vehicles for the advancement of private and particular interests rather than public ones. Arab states with limited political institutions are often beset by tribalism, and tribalism in turn results in skewed and undemocratic political institutions.
In Egypt, the stage is set for Gamal Mubarak to be the National Democratic Party’s sole candidate for succession. The likelihood of Gamal’s succeeding his father is high if succession happens while his father is still alive. Without Hosni Mubarak, Gamal is on his own, as there is no shortage of dark horses that could potentially and literally make a good showing in the race to the presidency.
In Libya, Muammar Qaddafi has designated both military and political heirs; thus nothing is unpredictable about Libya’s hereditary succession. What is unpredictable is whether Qaddafi’s tribe puts its weight behind a political or a military successor.
In Yemen, political succession is based on an implicit pact between President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s Hashed tribe and the military, and only a member of the tribe is eligible for the country’s presidency. Saleh appears to be grooming his son Ahmed to take over, facilitating his meteoric rise through the military ranks and charging him with command of the deadliest forces in the land.
A banker (Gamal), a civil engineer/architect (Saif), and two military commanders (Ahmed Saleh & Mu‘tasim Qaddafi) constitute the litmus test of Arab republicanism and Western democracy promotion. Their succession could spell the death knell of all republican pretences or what is left of them.
About the Author
Larbi Sadiki
Former Non-resident Scholar, Middle East Center
Sadiki is senior lecturer in the Politics Department at the University of Exeter. Sadiki specializes in democratization in the Arab Middle East and lectures on Arab democratization and human rights, dialogue of civilizations, and Middle East–EU relations.
- Tunisian National Solidarity Fund as an Alternative Model
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Who Is Responsible for the Demise of the Russian Internet?Commentary
The Russian state has opted for complete ideological control of the internet and is prepared to bear the associated costs.
Maria Kolomychenko
- Is Opposition to Online Restrictions an Inflection Point for the Russian Regime?Commentary
After four years of war, there is no one who can stand up to the security establishment, and President Vladimir Putin is increasingly passive.
Tatiana Stanovaya
- Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?Commentary
It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.
Mikayel Zolyan
- After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?Commentary
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s ExpenseCommentary
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
