Patrimonialism Issues in Saudi Arabia and China - Report Example

A. NAME: B. COUNTRY PAIR: Saudi Arabia and China C. CONCEPT: Patrimonialism D. Patrimonialism is a form of leadership where the leaders are able to rule on the basis of their own legitimate authority rather than on the basis of established structures of governance (Jin & Chung, 2008). It is a leadership that is considered conservative in the modern society. This kind of leadership ensures that the majority of the people have limited control of the leadership. In this case, the leaders enjoy the absolute power from the public offices. In the content of non-democratic states, patrimonialism involves the follow of power from one direction of leaders. This would mean that in this kind of leadership, the leaders are able to overshadow all the sectors of economy to their favor with the expense of the rest of the nation. Both Saudi Arabia and Republic of China have experienced patrimonialism in their histories. In Saudi Arabia the leaders had been opposed to reforms of demoralization in order to enable them to remain in power over a long period of time (Othman, & Zahir, 2006). To achieve this, the leaders in this country supported the countries that exercised patrimonialism. In China the initial leadership in the imperial China was entirely patrimonial (Jing , 2001). However, unlike in Saudi Arabia, the system was for harmony seeking. The intended imperial china was centralized through the officialdom. Officialdom was a characteristic of patrimonial where the members involved in it would put their priorities first so as to marinate their status. China’s intentions of patrimonialism differs to that of Saudi Arabia in that , the system in this country was intended to bring unification of Imperial China while in Saudi Arabia the leaders used it as a way of maintaining their quo as well as to have access to economic resources. The nature of the Chinese society and its leadership had been characterised characterized with significant elements of Patrimonialism for a long time ( Der-wei Wang , 2003). However South Arabia Patrimonialism was practiced in the context of monarchial system (Zhang, 2009). Officialdom in this case was used to maintain the political class of the members. Patrimonialism in both countries was similar in that both countries had practiced the system for a long time with Saudi Arabia system being of Kingdom type while that of China was Imperial type. E. The three related concepts to patrimonialism in my comparison were Clientlism, Neo-patrimonialism and institutional Change. There are major similarities with my group members is issue of clientlism. All of us agree that this involves the leaders exchanging favors over a period of time. However we do not conquer to the means through which this is done. While I see it happening due to the ignorant of the people who are being led, my group members would also include use of force like military and other harsh means. Use of already weaknesses of the government structures is something that my group members see. While I would only emphasized patrimonialism due to the leaders using their powers to misuse the public, my group members see it differently. The misuse of power can also result due to the public being ignorant to the leaders and not pointing out the mistakes whenever they see them. Also, leaders can be given leadership in a governing structure that is difficult for the leaders to lead the people without engaging in patrimonialism. Most of my comparison concurs with those of the group members. Compared to the group members both of us agree that in overall patrimonialism brought negative change to both countries. Even in China where the original intention of it was to bring about good governance for the people, there lacked proper principles of implementation that saw leaders expressing their selfish interests (University of Macau, 2006). F. My initial concept of Patrimonialism was it entirely brought negative effects to the people who were governed, however looking for the case like in China; I now understand that it may be having positive impact if the leader intention is to do good to the people who he or she is leading. The example given by the group members of Pope as a patrimonial leader helps me understand that what matters most is who is the leader. Before I read other reports on the forum I only confined Patrimonialism as just a system created by leaders so that they can benefit selfishly as the leaders of the groups. However, other reports, my level of understanding has improved to a higher level. I have now understood that Patrimonialism can be expressed in various ways. It can have support systems that that contribute to its existence. It can also take different forms. G. From my original comparison, I would add the fact that the systems that practices patrimonialism are developed over a period of time and there are support structures that makes it possible for such a system to exist. Moreover, certain way of government style makes it hard for the leaders not to engage in this practice. Also, these kinds of systems can be the cause of lack of development in many countries. They are also being one of the reasons for high level of poverty in the two countries. H. Dictatorship would be a useful concept to compare the development China and Saudi Arabia. Dictatorship is an incumbent of a political office of the government in which the government is ruled by an individual person called a dictator (Long, Sebastian, 2010). In china, there was the premise of “People’s democratic dictatorship” in that the leading party in china would collaborate with the state in order to discharge dictatorial powers to the people ( Norman & Kate, 1999) Though those who are close to the leader would also benefit from privileges of the state, the person who benefited most is the president. In Saudi Arabia, a single family leads the entire government and political parties are banned, meaning that dictatorial authorities can be discharged by the single family which is in power. In both of the above two cases, no democratic power is given to the people of the respective countries to determine the top leadership. I. The précis produced by my colleagues helped me to deeply understand the concept of patrimonialism and also to look this concept from a wider perspective. In the precise of politics of Yemen, the president uses the family members to find a way of indirectly controlling the wealth of the state. Patrimonialism is promoted when a network that controls the wealth and power of this nation is founded on tribal basis. As a result, the network the president created, he is able to distribute access to oil concession and to sell the Yemen shares of government to prominent crude oil clients. This means the powers of the people to control their wealth is limited since no formal institution is able to do that other than the president. However a different scenario is seen in one party system of Syria and Laos. Though single party system would easily be seen to bring about patrimonialism, the two countries puts measures to ensure that even in the existence of such situation, the people have a way of contributing to the policies of the country. Sylia due to its extremist and violence is seen to portly a negative image of patrimonialism and hence the single power system of government. However, a different picture is displayed by Laos. The government involved here puts structures within itself that enables the people even those who are against the government to have a way of implementing their strategies. References David Der-wei Wang. (2003).Impersonating China, 25(1), 133-163 . Jing, C. (2001). Re-conceptualizing “Legitimacy for Studying Village Elections in China," Journal of Chinese Political Science, 2, ( 2),34-43. Jinq, Chung. (2008) Theoretical Reflections on Group Election Method in Chinese Village Elections (in Chinese), Poverty Alleviation and Villagers’ Self-governance, no. 1 (2): 25-26. Long, Sebastian. (2010).The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. New York: University Press of Florida. Norman, Kate.(1999) .Political Culture, Social Movements and Governability in Macao, Asian Affairs: An American Review, 1( 2) , 54-67. Othman, Zahir (2006), The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. London: Stacey International. University of Macau. (2006). "Village Elections in China: Local State Patrimonialism or Chinese Democracy," RAP Working Paper Series, 2(1), 1-34. Zhang, T. (2009) .The Singapore Casino Threat Theory and its Implications for Macao (in China), Hobbs Journal, 2(26), pp. 14-16. Zhang, T. (2009).The Painful Search for Change. Hobbs Journal, 1(25) , 12-15. Read More