NationStates

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
With monarchy you only really have two options.

1. Gaudy dictatorship.
2. Democracy with a mascot.

Neither of which I find particularly appealing.

2 is basically Parliamentary democracy. This is why I proposed...ailurocracy. Replacing Gulf monarchs with kitty cats must be fun. Kitty Arabia > Saudi Arabia.

Eugh. Then the mascot's a mascat. This is why we can't have good things, Nekostan.

The dynamic of politics in the modern Middle East is something which most Westerners don’t seem to wrap their heads around, which is understandable as it’s not at all resemblant of the Western left-right wing politics. The Monarchies, aka the royals, are in a constant power struggle against the clergy in which they both bye for influence. Case in point Iran’s Islamic Revolution, where the clergy successfully seized power from the monarchy. If we’re talking about Saudi Arabia specifically, everything needs to be put into context which is important in this case, the Saudi "export" of Wahhabism around the world isn’t something the royals chose to do, it’s a compromise they made with militant Islamists and the clergy following one of the most important events of the late 20th century which is also something most Westerners don’t know about, the 1979 Siege of Mecca. Had it not been for this one event and the ensuing compromises worked out, the Middle East and world as we know it would be completely different, including the possibility of 9/11 never happening.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Saudi Arabia is a highly authoritarian political entity that treats its own female subjects including even princesses like shit. Even nominally nicer ones such as Dubai are actually as nasty as Riyadh as what the misfortune of Princess Latifa has revealed.

If human rights actually exist then they must also apply to subjects of Gulf monarchies. Their abolition is a necessity just like the universal abolition of slavery. Even the current regime of Iran is nowhere as horrible as these entities in terms of women’s rights.

What do you guys think, NSG?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11 ... escape/amp

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/google-sau ... ng-app.php

Westerners (primarily the British and French colonial imperialists) first destroyed the Ottoman Empire, carving out the Middle East that has long been relatively stable (compared to the later periods) under Ottoman rule, and rather than establishing a single, large Arabian state carved the ex-Ottoman territories to be their colonies, which then caused massive conflict upon conflict in Palestine and Transjordan, Syria, Kurdistan, Iraq, and many more regions in the Arab world. The Middle East have no need for more disastrous foreign intervention.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Nakena wrote:
The way you talk about it you understanding of the original idea of monarchy is... lets say you confuse it with the degenerated form of it.

With monarchy you only really have two options.

1. Gaudy dictatorship.
2. Democracy with a mascot.

Neither of which I find particularly appealing.

Most monarchies did not act like gaudy dictatorships historically. Much like contemporary political leaders, they needed to maintain political legitimacy by trying to keep the peace, keep the coffers filled, and protect/respect the rights of their subjects. Given that in the past political violence was more common/acceptable and a lot of states couldn't invoke the principle of sovereignty made it quite unpragmatic for a lot of rulers to treat the majority of their people like utter shit. It wasn't unheard of for a people to literally invite a foreign ruler to invade and rule over them if their own was that tyrannical and despotic. This isn't getting into that the group of people that monarchs tended to be in conflict in the most were nobles/aristocrats who also tended to be the ones that would write the history books; it'd be like casting Teddy Roosevelt as some horrendous despot because of his trust busting. Some of the ones that have gone down as horrendous despots weren't even that bad or at least their reputations are more mixed, but that doesn't enter the widespread view because of what things have stuck and what have not. Sort of like how a particular country likes casting King George III as this brutish and callous tyrant when there is almost nothing to support such a characterization.

The Marlborough wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
With monarchy you only really have two options.

1. Gaudy dictatorship.
2. Democracy with a mascot.

Neither of which I find particularly appealing.

Most monarchies did not act like gaudy dictatorships historically. Much like contemporary political leaders, they needed to maintain political legitimacy by trying to keep the peace, keep the coffers filled, and protect/respect the rights of their subjects. Given that in the past political violence was more common/acceptable and a lot of states couldn't invoke the principle of sovereignty made it quite unpragmatic for a lot of rulers to treat the majority of their people like utter shit. It wasn't unheard of for a people to literally invite a foreign ruler to invade and rule over them if their own was that tyrannical and despotic. This isn't getting into that the group of people that monarchs tended to be in conflict in the most were nobles/aristocrats who also tended to be the ones that would write the history books; it'd be like casting Teddy Roosevelt as some horrendous despot because of his trust busting. Some of the ones that have gone down as horrendous despots weren't even that bad or at least their reputations are more mixed, but that doesn't enter the widespread view because of what things have stuck and what have not. Sort of like how a particular country likes casting King George III as this brutish and callous tyrant when there is almost nothing to support such a characterization.

Damn, it’s a mystery why most monarchies where overthrown since they where evidently so great.

Sarderia wrote:Westerners (primarily the British and French colonial imperialists) first destroyed the Ottoman Empire, carving out the Middle East that has long been relatively stable (compared to the later periods) under Ottoman rule, and rather than establishing a single, large Arabian state carved the ex-Ottoman territories to be their colonies, which then caused massive conflict upon conflict in Palestine and Transjordan, Syria, Kurdistan, Iraq, and many more regions in the Arab world. The Middle East have no need for more disastrous foreign intervention.

I mean... the Ottoman Empire was arguably a foreign influence in some respects. A lot of the high-ranking ministers, officials, and military commanders were drawn from among the Rumelian population, especially Albanians, Greeks, and Bosniak Serbs. The distinction is that the Ottomans had the ability to preserve their rule, probably due to the absence of popular nationalist movements and a shared Islamic faith, whereas European powers crashed directly into Arab nationalism in its heyday.

You'd have to commit a genocide before you could remove the existing gulf monarchies, because the percentage of the population that would defend them is so damn high, you'll have a river of blood and mountains of skulls before your task is done, in any scenario.

Parxland wrote:You'd have to commit a genocide before you could remove the existing gulf monarchies, because the percentage of the population that would defend them is so damn high, you'll have a river of blood and mountains of skulls before your task is done, in any scenario.

"I was hoping to greet Pitty on top of a mountain of corpses! But I didn't even get a pile started with him hot on my heels. What a killjoy."

Nakena wrote:Neocon logic aside, I believe that Saudi-Arabia should be abolished and the terretories be given back to the rightful claimant with is the current King of Jordan whose ancestors were driven out from the holy sites by the Al-Saud usurpators.

I pretty much agree. I think the Arabian peninsula would be much better off under Hashemite dominance. That said, there is nothing wrong with being a neocon. :^)

Nakena wrote:Neocon logic aside, I believe that Saudi-Arabia should be abolished and the terretories be given back to the rightful claimant with is the current King of Jordan whose ancestors were driven out from the holy sites by the Al-Saud usurpators.

Not really, if anything the Sharif of Mecca had a much clearer claim, although the Sharifate was more of a theocracy with hereditary succession than anything

Bienenhalde wrote:

Nakena wrote:Neocon logic aside, I believe that Saudi-Arabia should be abolished and the terretories be given back to the rightful claimant with is the current King of Jordan whose ancestors were driven out from the holy sites by the Al-Saud usurpators.

I pretty much agree. I think the Arabian peninsula would be much better off under Hashemite dominance. That said, there is nothing wrong with being a neocon. :^)

Hashemite domination would be pointless if they continue Saudi Arabia's monarchy-clergy pact. The natural geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Hashemite Arabia and Iran, which has been the primary cause of instability and funding of terror groups across the region, also won't magically disappear.

The name "Hashemite Arabia" is much more lit, though.

Resilient Acceleration wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:I pretty much agree. I think the Arabian peninsula would be much better off under Hashemite dominance. That said, there is nothing wrong with being a neocon. :^)

Hashemite domination would be pointless if they continue Saudi Arabia's monarchy-clergy pact. And to be honest, it won't necessarily cure the Sunni-Shia divide, especially in conflict regions such as Iraq. The natural geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Hashemite Arabia and Iran, which has been the primary cause of instability and funding of terror groups across the region, also won't magically disappear.

They should fire all the Wahhabist clergy and replace them with more moderate or mystical Sunni imams.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:Hashemite domination would be pointless if they continue Saudi Arabia's monarchy-clergy pact. And to be honest, it won't necessarily cure the Sunni-Shia divide, especially in conflict regions such as Iraq. The natural geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Hashemite Arabia and Iran, which has been the primary cause of instability and funding of terror groups across the region, also won't magically disappear.

They should fire all the Wahhabist clergy and replace them with more moderate or mystical Sunni imams.

Saudi Arabia had actually been trending towards more Westernization, until the 1979 Grand Mosque massacre came along and showed that following such path would be difficult if not impossible. The only way they can get rid of Wahabbi influence –and its resulting surge of Islamist radicalism if things don't go smoothly– is through a very dictatorial crackdown, which funnily enough is exactly what MbS is doing. It's pretty reasonable, the end of oil as a commodity will force Saudi Arabia to transition into a new economic model, and the clergy will be a great barrier to that.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:Hashemite domination would be pointless if they continue Saudi Arabia's monarchy-clergy pact. And to be honest, it won't necessarily cure the Sunni-Shia divide, especially in conflict regions such as Iraq. The natural geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Hashemite Arabia and Iran, which has been the primary cause of instability and funding of terror groups across the region, also won't magically disappear.

They should fire all the Wahhabist clergy and replace them with more moderate or mystical Sunni imams.

That’s not possible

Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:The dynamic of politics in the modern Middle East is something which most Westerners don’t seem to wrap their heads around, which is understandable as it’s not at all resemblant of the Western left-right wing politics. The Monarchies, aka the royals, are in a constant power struggle against the clergy in which they both bye for influence. Case in point Iran’s Islamic Revolution, where the clergy successfully seized power from the monarchy. If we’re talking about Saudi Arabia specifically, everything needs to be put into context which is important in this case, the Saudi "export" of Wahhabism around the world isn’t something the royals chose to do, it’s a compromise they made with militant Islamists and the clergy following one of the most important events of the late 20th century which is also something most Westerners don’t know about, the 1979 Siege of Mecca. Had it not been for this one event and the ensuing compromises worked out, the Middle East and world as we know it would be completely different, including the possibility of 9/11 never happening.

Adamede wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Most monarchies did not act like gaudy dictatorships historically. Much like contemporary political leaders, they needed to maintain political legitimacy by trying to keep the peace, keep the coffers filled, and protect/respect the rights of their subjects. Given that in the past political violence was more common/acceptable and a lot of states couldn't invoke the principle of sovereignty made it quite unpragmatic for a lot of rulers to treat the majority of their people like utter shit. It wasn't unheard of for a people to literally invite a foreign ruler to invade and rule over them if their own was that tyrannical and despotic. This isn't getting into that the group of people that monarchs tended to be in conflict in the most were nobles/aristocrats who also tended to be the ones that would write the history books; it'd be like casting Teddy Roosevelt as some horrendous despot because of his trust busting. Some of the ones that have gone down as horrendous despots weren't even that bad or at least their reputations are more mixed, but that doesn't enter the widespread view because of what things have stuck and what have not. Sort of like how a particular country likes casting King George III as this brutish and callous tyrant when there is almost nothing to support such a characterization.

Damn, it’s a mystery why most monarchies where overthrown since they where evidently so great.

Probably has something to do with the prevailing ideological trend of the past two and half centuries that are against monarchism as a matter of principle, even if they are actually ruling effectively. Not to mention the impact of imperialism and then the two reigning superpowers at the time of decolonization. Even popular monarchs were overthrown because ideologues obtained power or simply out of spite. Pedro II was overthrown because rich coffee farmers hated him for allowing and cheering the cause of abolitionism and pressured/bribed the Brazilian military to overthrow him despite most people not wanting to become a republic. They lucked out on Pedro II simply being old and tired and not wishing to cause too much of a conflict and so peacefully accepted the coup and went into exile. Thus Brazil is now a republic.

The Marlborough wrote:

Adamede wrote:Damn, it’s a mystery why most monarchies where overthrown since they where evidently so great.

Probably has something to do with the prevailing ideological trend of the past two and half centuries that are against monarchism as a matter of principle, even if they are actually ruling effectively. Not to mention the impact of imperialism and then the two reigning superpowers at the time of decolonization. Even popular monarchs were overthrown because ideologues obtained power or simply out of spite. Pedro II was overthrown because rich coffee farmers hated him for allowing and cheering the cause of abolitionism and pressured/bribed the Brazilian military to overthrow him despite most people not wanting to become a republic. They lucked out on Pedro II simply being old and tired and not wishing to cause too much of a conflict and so peacefully accepted the coup and went into exile. Thus Brazil is now a republic.

In light of the recent failures of western democracy, absolute monarchy is a system I could get behind

There would be a renewed emphasis on honor, loyalty, and the nation as a whole. Pluralism and democracy seems to create and exacerbate social divisions; there’s just so much disunity now.

Instead of judging the Gulf kingdoms, I think we should observe and see what we want to adopt and what we want to avoid. They have good and bad policies.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Probably has something to do with the prevailing ideological trend of the past two and half centuries that are against monarchism as a matter of principle, even if they are actually ruling effectively. Not to mention the impact of imperialism and then the two reigning superpowers at the time of decolonization. Even popular monarchs were overthrown because ideologues obtained power or simply out of spite. Pedro II was overthrown because rich coffee farmers hated him for allowing and cheering the cause of abolitionism and pressured/bribed the Brazilian military to overthrow him despite most people not wanting to become a republic. They lucked out on Pedro II simply being old and tired and not wishing to cause too much of a conflict and so peacefully accepted the coup and went into exile. Thus Brazil is now a republic.

In light of the recent failures of western democracy, absolute monarchy is a system I could get behind

There would be a renewed emphasis on honor, loyalty, and the nation as a whole. Pluralism and democracy seems to create and exacerbate social divisions; there’s just so much disunity now.

Instead of judging the Gulf kingdoms, I think we should observe and see what we want to adopt and what we want to avoid. They have good and bad policies.

They also have so much oil, they can pretty much bribe the population

Remember the protests in Saudi Arabia in 2011? They didn’t have to use force to crush them, the government just authorized using extra oil money to raise nationwide salaries. Boom, protests stopped

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Probably has something to do with the prevailing ideological trend of the past two and half centuries that are against monarchism as a matter of principle, even if they are actually ruling effectively. Not to mention the impact of imperialism and then the two reigning superpowers at the time of decolonization. Even popular monarchs were overthrown because ideologues obtained power or simply out of spite. Pedro II was overthrown because rich coffee farmers hated him for allowing and cheering the cause of abolitionism and pressured/bribed the Brazilian military to overthrow him despite most people not wanting to become a republic. They lucked out on Pedro II simply being old and tired and not wishing to cause too much of a conflict and so peacefully accepted the coup and went into exile. Thus Brazil is now a republic.

In light of the recent failures of western democracy, absolute monarchy is a system I could get behind

There would be a renewed emphasis on honor, loyalty, and the nation as a whole. Pluralism and democracy seems to create and exacerbate social divisions; there’s just so much disunity now.

Instead of judging the Gulf kingdoms, I think we should observe and see what we want to adopt and what we want to avoid. They have good and bad policies.

Lol.

You always support authoritarianism.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
In light of the recent failures of western democracy, absolute monarchy is a system I could get behind

There would be a renewed emphasis on honor, loyalty, and the nation as a whole. Pluralism and democracy seems to create and exacerbate social divisions; there’s just so much disunity now.

Instead of judging the Gulf kingdoms, I think we should observe and see what we want to adopt and what we want to avoid. They have good and bad policies.

Lol.

You always support authoritarianism.

tbf IM has been always fairly consistent and open hearted on support for legalist autocracy.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
In light of the recent failures of western democracy, absolute monarchy is a system I could get behind

There would be a renewed emphasis on honor, loyalty, and the nation as a whole. Pluralism and democracy seems to create and exacerbate social divisions; there’s just so much disunity now.

Instead of judging the Gulf kingdoms, I think we should observe and see what we want to adopt and what we want to avoid. They have good and bad policies.

Lol.

You always support authoritarianism.

For real though. Beating discriminated parts of society, as well as "solving" conflicts by funding proxy terror groups that kills innocent citizens while you yourself cower behind your palace walls, and then run crying to Uncle Sam when there's a problem too big to solve yourself is pretty much the furthest thing from the concept of "honor".

Infected Mushroom wrote:In light of the recent failures of western democracy, absolute monarchy is a system I could get behind

There would be a renewed emphasis on honor, loyalty, and the nation as a whole. Pluralism and democracy seems to create and exacerbate social divisions; there’s just so much disunity now.

Instead of judging the Gulf kingdoms, I think we should observe and see what we want to adopt and what we want to avoid. They have good and bad policies.

The Gulf Kingdoms are however completly corrupt and do not on the framework you think they work on.

Nakena wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Lol.

You always support authoritarianism.

tbf IM has been always fairly consistent and open hearted on support for legalist autocracy.

This sounds like one of my nightmares.

Resilient Acceleration wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Lol.

You always support authoritarianism.

For real though. Beating discriminated parts of society, as well as "solving" conflicts by funding proxy terror groups that kills innocent citizens while you yourself cower behind your palace walls, and then run crying to Uncle Sam when there's a problem too big to solve yourself is pretty much the furthest thing from the concept of "honor".

You mean your concept of honor? It’s different from theirs. Authoritarians believe that authoritarianism is normal while people rebelling against it is dishonorable.

Infected Mushroom wrote:In light of the recent failures of western democracy, absolute monarchy is a system I could get behind

There would be a renewed emphasis on honor, loyalty, and the nation as a whole. Pluralism and democracy seems to create and exacerbate social divisions; there’s just so much disunity now.

Instead of judging the Gulf kingdoms, I think we should observe and see what we want to adopt and what we want to avoid. They have good and bad policies.

To quote Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Autocracy isn't very pretty. Honor, loyalty, and the nation achieved through force and oppression can only last so long until the people have enough.

Frankly, it is better to pursue reforms for a democracy than to advocate for a return to the failed absolute monarchies that both the West and the East have rejected throughout several centuries.

Most monarchies weren't absolute originally. Not even hereditary. They were feudal polities where the King was often merely the first among equals, and often elected or confirmed by tribal council of free man. It was more like Rohan from Lord of the Rings than France under the Sun King.

The whole "divine right of Kings" stuff and not to mention absolutism would come many centuries later, when the feudalism was replaced by statism.