Egypt vs Saudi Arabia - Term Paper Example

REASONS BEHIND EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA DIVERGENCE IN OUTCOMES Number October 28, OUTLINE REASONS BEHIND EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA DIVERGENCE IN OUTCOMES I. INTRODUCTION A. In this paper, the reasons for divergence in the types of governments between Egypt and Saudi Arabia are discussed. Investigating the backgrounds of both Egypt and Saudi Arabia will forge an understanding on why the countries are quite different today. While Saudi Arabia remains in the monarchial form of leadership, the kind of government in Egypt has undergone a number of changes making it a democratic nation. B. The difference between ideology as well as class structure between Egypt and Saudi Arabia which is now republic vs. monarchy is one of the main factors which have influenced the countries to have different paths over time. II. BODY PARAGRAPHS A. Differences in Political Parties Development 1. Egypt was under a dictatorship form of government led by the former Muslim brother, President Mubarak since 1981 until it was overthrown, while Saudi Arabia has retained its Islamic monarchial rule down the line of the country’s leadership. a. In Saudi Arabia, the government has not changed since the kingdom formation, lacking political parties challenge in the leadership. b. Egypt, it has a better history in political parties’ formation and practice, than Saudi Arabia. The existence of Liberation Rally, Nation Union, Arab Socialist Union and National Democratic Parties provided a better platform for the political leadership to introduce change in Egypt. 2. The power possession of Mubarak had gained roots from his military background a. Earlier networks of political groups and social formations that had carried traditions of resistance through the period of repression became mobilized beneath the surface of dictatorial order (Paulsen n.d.). 3. With the leadership of the country limited to one Royal family, there may lack instabilities in the governance, but active and talented leadership skills within the communities will always be left out. B. Relation with Foreign Nations 1. International relationship between Saudi Arabia and other western countries contributes to the sustenance of the Al-Saud family in ruling a. Most of the Middle East countries have large deposits of petroleum oil, and gases which attracts powerful nations, if not forcefully getting involved in the commotions of these Arab countries, in the name of providing a solution, but rather their intentions are to keep them closer for future reasons. C. Differences in Military Stands 1. Egyptian military, as an institution of professionals contributed a lot to bring in revolution in the country. a. The army leaders in Egypt realized that that their establishments could present a valuable role under new administration, and thus were willing to dare throwing out the old guard as they were not personal instruments of the ruler (Gause III 2011). 2. Military in Saudi Arabia strongly stands with the Royal regime which puts it in total control. a. The closeness of ruling family members, and the back up of the Army to the Arabian grassroots, suppresses any uprising from the upcoming divided societies. D. Trends in Law and Constitution Developments (Reform) 1. Saudi Arabia does not have a constitution to regulate its affairs; therefore, all aspects of private and public life are determined by the Sharia (Kapiszewski 2006). a. This act follows the strict observation of Sharia law, where the king comes from the holy family linage, and rules by decree. 2. Though Egypt is no different based on the common religion, it has been able to evolve with suppressed democracy, under Mubarak dictatorship. a. Although adherence of Islamic Sharia, the country has its own constitution, that specifies the powers of the people, and the president of the nation. III. CONCLUSION A. The System and rule of governance between Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s leadership, international relations, countries’ security structure and role, and the law reform give the explanation for Saudi Arabia and Egypt divergence in outcomes. B. Egypt uprising was strongly supported by protestors in conjunction with political parties presence, while in Saudi Arabia, any uprising movement is suppressed by the existing security force and law that disagrees democracy. The relation of Egypt with Western countries remains loose. The military in Egypt refused to be protectors of the rulers, while in Saudi Arabia; they remain loyal to the monarchy. The pattern in law reform between the two countries occurred earlier in Egypt than in Saudi Arabia, even though they are still in progress. In Egypt, the presence of constitution and its reform accelerates change and freedom in democracy while Saudi Arabia clings to Sharia law that restricts freedom. C. The alternative cause could be human rights violation and discrimination of the people under Mubarak regime and economical decline in Egypt, while in Saudi Arabia economy remains stable. However, the two need to be further researched for conclusive evidence. Introduction The type of government in Egypt is very different from that in Saudi Arabia. In the past, while Egypt exercised a dictatorship form of government, Saudi Arabia had a monarchial form of leadership. This paper seeks to investigate the backgrounds of both Egypt and Saudi Arabia and forge an understanding on why the countries are quite different today. In this paper, the reasons for divergence in the types of governments between Egypt and Saudi Arabia are discussed. Today, while Saudi Arabia remains in the monarchial form of leadership, the kind of government in Egypt has undergone a number of changes making it a democratic nation. Changes in the Middle East and North Africa were as a result of the Arab spring. The movement called for citizens among different countries in the regions to protest against their authorities, which resulted to positive results in some countries, while the form of government in other countries such as Saudi Arabia remained the same. According to Iskander (n.d.), revolution may concentrate on specific fields, such as political, social and economical organization of the state. The difference between ideology as well as class structure between Egypt and Saudi Arabia which is now republic vs. monarchy is one of the main factors which have influenced the countries to have different paths over time. Differences in Political Parties’ Development The type of governance between Egypt and Saudi Arabia differed. Egypt was under a dictatorship form of government led by the former Muslim brother, President Mubarak since 1981 until it was overthrown, while Saudi Arabia has retained its Islamic monarchial rule down the line of the country’s leadership. Most of the presidents from ancient time in Egypt had their educational backgrounds rooted in military; President Muhammad Naguib, Abdel Nasser, Sadat without excluding Mubarak. It is believed that Mubarak used force and dictatorship that demonstrated his resistance to change. If you look at the Egypt, it has a better history in political parties’ formation and practice, than Saudi Arabia. According to Rabbo (2011), there exist about sixty seven parties contesting for parliamentary seats in Egypt where twenty four of them existed before the revolution and the rest were formed after it. The existence of Liberation Rally, Nation Union, Arab Socialist Union and National Democratic Parties provided a better platform for the political leadership to introduce change in Egypt. Though Mubarak had ruled for about three decades in a democratic party, his leadership was dictatorship invoking resistance to change in the nation. The citizens’ demand for reforms in governance came in through forceful change, under independent party that led President Morsi into leadership today. As Bellin (2004) mentioned, the Egyptian state’s coercive capacity and the will had led them to harsh repression of civil society where active forces had before, been reluctant to mobilize politically. The power possession of Mubarak had gained roots from his military background, vice president position and finally, the massive period of dominance in government that was used to silence the existing political parties. Earlier networks of political groups and social formations that had carried traditions of resistance through the period of repression became mobilized beneath the surface of dictatorial order (Paulsen n.d.). In Saudi Arabia, the government has not changed since the kingdom formation, lacking political parties challenge in the leadership. In 2011, the first political party has been formed and though it has not been approved by the government, it is a new move to introduce change in ruling for the people of Saudi Arabia (Fendel 2011). The insufficiency of political parties will see the country continue under the same leadership for a long time, until the parties’ formation gain roots with the help of the governed society. As of 2006, Kapiszewski (2006) mentions that, “Freedom of expression is severely restricted, in particular by prohibitions of criticism of the government, Islam, and the ruling family. Public demonstrations are forbidden.” The power of change has to be demonstrated by the people through mobilization of individuals to join political parties, just as various members of professional groups have joined the new Islamic national party. With the leadership of the country limited to one Royal family, there may lack instabilities in the governance, but active and talented leadership skills within the communities will always be left out. There are other people who can lead the nation to a better advanced state besides the Al-Saud family that have clinched on the thrown since 1932. Relation with Foreign Nations The relation between Egypt and Saudi Arabia has always been based on interests. According to Al-Toraifi (2012), “Whenever Egypt recognized its interests with Saudi Arabia, relations developed and cooperation was consolidated, and when Egypt changed its political orientation, its interests differed and relations were strained.”During the era when Egypt was governed by a monarchial type of government, the two countries would converge and at times they were characterized by tensions. International relationship between Saudi Arabia and other western countries contributes to the sustenance of the Al-Saud family in ruling. It is no doubt that powerful states, and governments, have had to rely on Asian continent, especially Saudi Arabia, to continue benefiting from the oil products generated by this nation. Most of the Middle East countries have large deposits of petroleum oil, and gases which attracts powerful nations, if not forcefully getting involved in the commotions of these Arab countries, in the name of providing a solution, but rather their intentions are to keep them closer for future reasons. In the past, Britain had attempted involvement with Iran, after appreciation of oil findings, before the start of the first-world war. Both the French and the British had their foot deep in the oil producing countries, where they controlled and manipulated most of the operations, in development programs of these countries. Though Iran was able to pull out of the British palms, its regime investment procedure, that depended on oil revenue had been clashed following foreign British oil interest. After the world war, Iran and Saudi Arabia went unnoticed by the British, which gave room for the United State to approach Saudi Arabia. All along, the relationship has been cultivated through oil trading, as the US protects the existing leadership to keep its future oil supply. According to Noreng (2006), “in 1930s, US companies found oil, enabling the Saudi king to play off the United States against Britain, to maintain independence. Relations with the oil industry and the United States developed in a far less conflictual way, than was the case with Iran’s and Iraq’s relation with the Britain.” Most of development in Saudi Arabia was conducted under the US control right from 1930s to date. It is very clear that the US has a particular interest with the Middle East and North African (MENA) society, apart from its peace establishment role. Egypt has his history with the US too; since 1922, it instituted a diplomatic relation with Egyptian government with regard to the shared interests, which got to do with strengthening trade relations and enhancing regional security to maintain peace and stability. The US move seems to have a motive in both oil producing countries, but the condition in Egypt seemed to be hostile and bitter towards its inflexible government, that had been working close with the United States. Consequently, United States had to loosen the relation, and focus on resistant Saudi Arabia for future oil securities. “As the Kingdom provides the West with the uninterrupted deliveries of oil, Western governments, first the British and later the United States, guarantee the security of Saudi Arabia and also the position of the ruling family” (Kapiszewski 2006). In other words, it occurs that the US easily takes advantage of tyrannical ruling, because, why then should it be difficult to enter into agreement with democrats than autocrat countries. This case fits that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where Egypt refuses to put up with foreign dictates. Differences in Military Stands Egyptian military, as an institution of professionals contributed a lot to bring in revolution in the country. Understanding their role in the nation was a call to realize where their country was headed, under the former despot ruler. They did not act to please the head of state, even with the fear of loosing their jobs, while sidelining with the Protesters. The army leaders in Egypt realized that that their establishments could present a valuable role under new administration, and thus were willing to dare throwing out the old guard as they were not personal instruments of the ruler (Gause III 2011). On the contrary, Military in Saudi Arabia strongly stands with the Royal regime which puts it in total control. Earlier, the government had secured its future position, by ensuring that every tribe in the kingdom was connected to the royal governance through marriage, and more so, that it had quickly moved to recruit more national guards from the resistant areas and tribes from the west, and central Arabia. The closeness of ruling family members, and the back up of the Army to the Arabian grassroots, suppresses any uprising from the upcoming divided societies. Not that some people in the society cannot protest, but that the military, and the national guards remain loyal to the Al-Saud Dynasty. This would forge fear for any consequences that would follow the introduction of rebellion. Trends in Law and Constitution Developments (Reform) The fact that the two share similar predominant Islam religion, it does not prevent the assumption that differences arose from Arab democracy deficit, having something to do with religion or culture (Diamond 2010). The backbone of law in Saudi Arabia is from Koran and Sunna and follows the Islamic Sharia strictly as law. Saudi Arabia does not have a constitution to regulate its affairs; therefore, all aspects of private and public life are determined by the Sharia (Kapiszewski 2006). Probably, it is because Saudi is purely Muslim, and Egypt having a mixture of several religions, despite declaring its official religion and language as Islam, and Arabic respectively. The Saudi Kingdom structure is tighter than in Egypt, intensifying the resistance to any western political influence. According to Saudi monarchial structure, king leadership is inherent and exercises the right to appoint senior most top officials. Chronological events as of 2011 illustrated King Abdullah selecting Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz as the next heir in Saudi Arabia, following the death of Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz a week before (Max Planck Institute 2012). This act follows the strict observation of Sharia law, where the king comes from the holy family linage, and rules by decree. Too much has been associated with the religious belief, and way of living, in accordance to Sunna, that people have been tied inside the cocoon. The person’s will, and desire, to divert the way of governance in Saudi, is restricted to obedience of the law, knowing that the government controls most of the security, and economic stability. Similarly, women have had their worst times, involving denial to exercise their freedom. Such comments like dissent and protest to be un-Islamic, by religious leaders, and limitations surrounding publication of anything affecting the image of the royal family, and its leadership, all revolve around the structure of their law (Max Planck Institute 2012). Though new stands are coming in from the leadership, they have got a long way to go, to perch up with the rest of the world. Intellectuals of Saudi Arabia government requesting for political reforms, counter terrorism law proposition by the government, granted wish for women voting and involvement in the Shura council after 2010 is a path to revolution, though slightly after Egyptian rebirth. Saudi refusal to adopt western culture of democracy sends the country to a continuous bondage. The secret is not to entirely ‘adopt’ as per say, but rather assimilate certain directives to acquire freedom, and rights for all with equality. Though Egypt is no different based on the common religion, it has been able to evolve with suppressed democracy, under Mubarak dictatorship. The capture of the western civil, and political culture in government, has paved in for flexibility in the society. Although adherence of Islamic sharia, the country has its own constitution, that specifies the powers of the people, and the president of the nation. The constitution limits the power of the president over the people, while creating a loophole for the people to engage, in the matters of the national assembly. It also sets free the mixed Christian, and Islam population to practice their rights. Egypt has a modern structural government, with the head of state, who appoints and removes from power, the prime minister, and the council of ministers. The system comprise of three branches of government, namely; Judiciary, Legislature and Executive. The legislature consists of the people assembly, which enacts laws, and approves bilateral and multilateral treaties, as well as the national budget, and the Shura council, that acts in the consulting capacity to the executive and people assembly (“Legal research guide: Egypt” 2012). Through the parliament procedure, people assembly has authority to pass a bill into law, in the second chance of majority vote, without the president interference. This is a step ahead of the Saudi government structure and flexibility. While Saudi women establish their voice in political, social and economic aspects, in Egypt so far, there exist three women in the cabinet as ministers, while many more come along in the judiciary, and other represented areas. In 1997, Egyptian highest judiciary authority banned the practice of excision, even when the consent of the child or parent was given (Dickovick 2012). The rate to which women are gaining legal protection and rights, in the two male dominated societies, is much quicker and better in Egypt. Women, though slowly but sure, have been involved in government since early 1960s, “the first woman cabinet minister was Dr. Hikmat Abu-Zeid, who took up the social affairs portfolio in September 1962. Since then, in all cabinets, one or two portfolios are assigned to women” (“Women in the Executive Authority” 2012). Currently Egypt is under transition, although not smooth, since various groups fight for right, they have managed to push for constitution reforms. Conclusion The System and rule of governance between Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s leadership, international relations, countries’ security structure and role, and the law reform give the explanation for Saudi Arabia and Egypt divergence in outcomes. Egypt uprising was strongly supported by protestors in conjunction with political parties presence, that backed up the desire of democracy in the country while in Saudi Arabia, any uprising movement is suppressed by the existing security force and law that disagrees democracy. The relation of Egypt with Western countries remains loose, excluding foreign policies and dictates, in the political and economic environment, which shifts in Saudi Arabia where the US and Britain now concentrates. The military in Egypt refused to be protectors of the rulers, and instead focuses their attention to professional roles, while in Saudi Arabia; they remain loyal to the monarchy. The pattern in law reform between the two countries occurred earlier in Egypt than in Saudi Arabia, even though they are still in progress. In Egypt, the presence of constitution and its reform accelerates change and freedom in democracy while Saudi Arabia clings to Sharia law that restricts freedom. Egypt is in progress of assimilating women, and Christian religious population through the constitution draft. All the above findings support the hypothesis to divergence in outcomes between the two countries. The alternative cause could be human rights violation and discrimination of the people under Mubarak regime and economical decline in Egypt, while in Saudi Arabia economy remains stable. However, the two need to be further researched for conclusive evidence. Reference List Africa 2012. Edited by J. Tyler Dickovick. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 2012. Al-Toraifi, Adel. “Saudi Arabia and Egypt: Interests at the time of revolution.”Alarabiya. Accessed October 30, 2012. http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2012/05/03/211859.html Bellin, Eva. “The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Politics 36, no. 2 (2004): 139-157.Accessed October 28, 2012, http://www.pols.boun.edu.tr/uploads%5Cfiles%5C816.pdf. Diamond, Larry. “Why are there no Arab Democracies?” Journal of Democracy 21 no. 1, (2010): 93-104. Accessed October 28, 2012. http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/gratis/Diamond-21-1.pdf. Fendel, Hillel. “First ever: political party in Saudi Arabia.” Israelnationalnews. Last modified February 13, 2011. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142289#.UIz54GdVRdg. Gause III, F. Gregory. “Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring: the Myth of Authoritarian Stability.” Foreign Affairs 90 Issue 4, (2011): 81-90. Accessed October 28, 2012. http://aa.usembassy.or.kr/pdf11/IN55.pdf. Iskander, Amir. “Saddam Hussein the Fighter, the Thinker and the Man.” Trans. Hassan Selim. Al-moharer. Accessed October 30, 2012. http://www.al-moharer.net/saddam/amir_iskandar_p2c8e.pdf. Kapiszewski, Andrzej. “Saudi Arabia: Steps towards Democratization or Reconfiguration of Authoritarianism?” Journal of Asian and African Studies 41 (5/6), (2006): 459-482. Accessed October 28, 2012. http://ipac.kacst.edu.sa/eDoc/eBook/4411.pdf. “Legal research guide: Egypt.” Loc.gov. Last modified July 26, 2012. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/egypt.php. Max Planck Institute. “Chronology of Events.” Mpil. Last modified October 24, 2012. http://www.mpil.de/ww/en/pub/research/details/know_transfer/constitutional_reform_in_arab_/saudi_arabien.cfm. Noreng, Oystein. Crude power: politics and Oil market. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. ltd, 2006. Paulsen Nathan. “The fall of Hosni Mubarak: a story that will be told for Generations.” War-times. Accessed October 27, 2012. http://www.war-times.org/node/280. Rabbo Ahmad. Abed. “Egyptian Political Parties and Parliamentary Elections 2011/2012.” English.dohainstitute. Last modified December 6, 2011. http://english.dohainstitute.org/release/f3e63fe9-eecb-49cc-884f-01bdc7a340eb “Women in the Executive Authority.” Sis. Accessed October 28, 2012. http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Story.aspx?sid=2259. Read More