S-A can still be in for a mess. The succession issue is not exactly sorted out as far as I can recall.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Apparently, it may be sooner than believed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...dis-may-run-out-of-oil-to-export-by-2030.html
They have a family council to decide who succeeds to the throne. Given that the house of Saud is run by a bunch of 70+ year old men, I don't see that there is much of a danger of ambition or strife, even if they haven't settled on a successor yet... those guys are so old they are more worried about their house's reputation and legacy than about aggrandizing themselves.
Hence, the issue is "what happens when all those 70+ year old men die?" For all we know, it could well be in rapid succession.
As anyone who ever read anything on the House of Saud knows, they practice traditional polygamy so their are hundreds, if not thousands of princes in their mid-50s. They also have access to the best health care in the world, so they certainly aren't going to so fast as to leave the next generation unable to take the reins.
This is the part I'm trying to get to. Can that number of people ever agree on anything? Succession issues are oftentimes less about who sits on the throne, and more of "are others willing to play second fiddle"?
It's not a democratic process. There is a formal family council of sorts, which has 8 or 10 people in it, and they decide the succession. IDK how they work out who succeeds into the council, of if the monarch has to be a council member. But that's the body of people who decide it. Really old men, all of them sons of King Abdulaziz (he died in 1953 and still has 35 living sons), all of them with long years of experience in various government posts. This system is not going to run out of princes any time soon.
--edit: here's the wiki link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance_Council
Why does he have the title king and not sultan BTW? I dont remember any other muslim ruler having a king title.
The Sauds were "Sultans of Nejd" before they became "Kings of Hejaz and Nejd" through conquest, so it appears their king title ranks higher than the Sultan title they had previously.
Wikipedia says:
So probably it was because of the influence of European ideas and colonialism.
So probably it was because of the influence of European ideas and colonialism.
The House of Saud, as with most other ME monarchies, 'coup-proofs' itself by establishing parallel agencies that restrain each other (e.g. National Guard + the regular army), brings in royalty to head most of these positions, and then establishes patronage systems to regulate royal behavior.
Nowadays the issue with the Saudi princes is more that the House of Saud is getting so big now, patronage resources are getting stretched to the limit. So with every new generation, the likelihood increases that the 'bargaining' process for the throne excludes a significant number of Sauds from the loop (since those 8 to 10 people in the council will prioritize their closest allies first, obviously).
Since each Saud has some claim to the throne (due to the fact that ME monarchies, and Saudi Arabia especially, don't like succession laws because it cuts out the bargaining process), the potential threat is that some screwed-over Saud is eventually going to get annoyed with his lot in life, and uses his position to shake things up and bring the whole edifice down in the process (like in Afghanistan). Alternatively, he could just sit by and allow outside forces to continue plotting against the leadership, which is just as bad (like in Libya, or really any successful republican coup).
Nowadays the issue with the Saudi princes is more that the House of Saud is getting so big now, patronage resources are getting stretched to the limit. So with every new generation, the likelihood increases that the 'bargaining' process for the throne excludes a significant number of Sauds from the loop (since those 8 to 10 people in the council will prioritize their closest allies first, obviously).
Since each Saud has some claim to the throne (due to the fact that ME monarchies, and Saudi Arabia especially, don't like succession laws because it cuts out the bargaining process), the potential threat is that some screwed-over Saud is eventually going to get annoyed with his lot in life, and uses his position to shake things up and bring the whole edifice down in the process (like in Afghanistan). Alternatively, he could just sit by and allow outside forces to continue plotting against the leadership, which is just as bad (like in Libya, or really any successful republican coup).
Last edited:
Same thing in place in most republican countries in the Middle East. The Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guard even fought parallel campaigns during the Iran-Iraq war.
IIRC, a Sultan isn't really a king, it's a subordinate title rather like 'Satrap' or 'Viceroy'. In ancient times the Arabs despised the idea of kings.
Which means 'king' in the normal sense. In Islamic scriptures the word 'king' is used pretty much exclusively in a negative context, unless it's referring to God (ie. Maliki yawmid din, 'master of the day of judgement' in the Qur'an). The Arabs, being a small population of pastoralists organised along tribal and familial lines, valued their independence and individual rights, the idea of one man lording it others was abhorrent to them. kind of like the early inhabitants of a certain other tribal settlement on the other side of the Mediterranean.
These ideas were incorporated into Muslim theology and law. Even today, if you look at the speech recently given by Mr. Baghdadi, you will find this sort of thing:
That's not just the bluster of a cult leader trying to claim that he's working for the best interests of his followers. That's the kind of capacity that any Muslim leader (a Caliph in this case) is supposed to operate within, basically as the first amongst equals. Much like the Roman Empire, Muslim states kept up this shadowy pretence of egalitarianism for an absurdly long time.Daily Telegraph on ISIS leader said:
A war that they aren't really involved in. Iraq / Syria do not have the capacity to attack Kurdish areas even they desire to do so. Kurdish independence is likely to increase the desire. There is no magic wand that you can wave that would keep the Kurdish areas safe, they are only safe whilst the Arabs are busy fighting each other.
The "magic wand" would be giving them their actual ethnic majority lands, so that they have the power to stand on their own, which is what Kuwait could not do.
The Emir of Bahrain upgraded his title to King in 2002. The Kingdom of Jordan has had a king, not a sultan since independence. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Iraq all changed into kingdoms with a king upon independence. Following WWI, Hedjaz became a kingdom until it was annexed by the Saudis. Likewise the shortlived kingdom of Syria had a king, not a sultan. Only Yemen and Oman kept their Sultanates.