Those who have fallen so far are non-hereditary figures, unlike the kings and emirs of the region. The Arab Spring swept three of them away but the latter remained intact.
We have witnessed the ousting of Tunisia’s Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak through a relatively peaceful rebellion. Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya could not read the spirit of the times and the extent of popular resistance against his rule. He had to be overthrown by force. Internal forces cooperated with foreign powers to do the job.
Two more likely candidates are resisting popular demands for more freedom and participation. One is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and the second is President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen. Their defiance of protesters and insistence on holding their positions has so far caused countrywide clashes and a considerable death toll. When blood is spilled on the relationship between governments and the people, the legitimacy of the former becomes questionable. That is what happened in both Syria and Yemen, but there is till no countervailing power center to take on the administration from the present one-man rulers.
On the other hand, the kings of Jordan and Morocco and the kings and emirates of the Gulf countries refrained from using brute force against demonstrations (except Bahrain) in their respective countries and promised democratic reforms. The youth especially want free competition for jobs and other public opportunities, which is why they demand an end to corruption and cronyism that is a common illness of authoritarianism.
This promise gave the benefit of hope to their countrymen who wanted change, not to overthrow them. The United Arab Emirates, for example, promised more freedom and access to politics, like empowering the Federal National Council (FNC) that is presently an advisory institution without any legislative functions.
The people of the Middle East know by now that seemingly elected presidents can be more tyrannical than benign royals. Furthermore, royal families rely on a long history of legitimacy to rule over the country. Presidents who stay on after successive fake or rigged elections create the impression that they are usurpers of power. In fact, such men come to power with the argument that they represent and want to serve the people. When they don’t, a problem of legitimacy arises and the security apparatus of the government begins to protect the president from his people rather than the other way around. Disappointment builds.
Will the Middle Eastern rulers use the time given to them by their people effectively? That is yet to be seen. But there are some positive signs. For example, King Mohammed VI of Morocco promised major constitutional changes. In July, the Moroccan people approved a referendum calling for the expansion of democratic rights while leaving most of the powers of the king intact. The king will no more be the head of government. He will in return remain in charge of foreign policy and religious affairs as well as the security apparatus. Everyone knows in Morocco, including the king, that such reforms will not end the demand of the people for more freedom and democratization. But the process will be gradual and not violent.
There is a similar process at play in Jordan. King Abdullah is trying to merge more than 30 existing political parties into two or three so that they can compete with each other more effectively. Future elections will then yield a representative government, in contrast to the one appointed by the king today.
Kingdoms and emirates of the Gulf region eased the rising popular fervor for more freedom and rights by promises of serious reform. Even the rulers of Saudi Arabia have promised what could not have been imaginable until lately: the participation of women in municipal elections and their appointment to the Royal Advisory Council (Shura) to the king starting in 2015.
This is what is called “people’s power” and its time has come.
