A Gulf Sheikh down coming?

[Dayuhan]

I think a key thing to remember is that revolution only seeks complete overthrow of the current system in the most extreme cases. Most often revolution simply seeks to place pressure on governments to make evolutions of governance that the government would prefer not to make.

Revolution

noun

1: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system

OED. QED.

As to "Arab Spring," it is best not to think of "spring" as in the season, but rather spring as in the compressed, coiled populaces long held in situations deemed unacceptable - with the compression effect increasing in recent years as the populaces of the Middle East have evolved in their expectations of governance far more rapidly than the governments of the region have been willing to evolve.

Are you putting "the populaces of the Middle East" together in a generic basket? I'm not sure that's a good idea, nor is it a good idea to assume that anyone's "expectations of governance" are what yours would be in their place.

The pressure in Saudi Arabia is much greater than is healthy for a society.

Based on what evidence? Seems to me the pressure has ratcheted down very considerably from the 90s, when things really felt like they could blow at any minute.

They seek to buy that pressure down. They export trouble makers to go to places like Yemen and Pakistan to raise trouble elsewhere; they turn a blind eye to the funding of organizations that either directly or indirectly fund illegal agents of political change, such as AQ. They diligently and ruthlessly identify and arrest any who show signs of attempting to organize movement against the government.

Yes, they do. Efforts to organize against government, though, have so far involved fairly small groups and a fair portion of the populace actually sees them as a threat and supports the government's aggressive moves against them. I see little evidence suggesting a rapidly spreading or expanding anti-government movement. I suspect that this is less because the government is liked (it isn't) than because these movements have nothing to offer that the populace wants and because the fear of instability outweighs the dislike of government.

adopt measures that give the populace a greater voice in how they are governed. Perhaps. Doing so would do wonders to reduce the pressure on the "Arab Spring" of the Saudi populace.

By what right or knowledge do you speak for the Saudi populace? Do you assume that "a greater voice in how they are governed" tops all popular agendas, everywhere?

Highly effective governments that are equally highly rigid and out of touch with an evolving populace are every bit as susceptible to revolution as are highly ineffective governments. Just ask King George of England.

Are they out of touch with the populace, or out of touch with your view of the populace? I suspect that they may have a better handle on their populace than you do. They know that the bulk of the populace is fairly comfortable, quite conservative, and generally terrified of any change that might threaten what they have. They also know that as long as the people are comfortable dissent is likely to remain confined to ideological fringes that have little appeal to the mainstream. How long they'll get away with it is anyone's guess. I could be wrong, but I suspect they'll get away with it longer than you think. Again, the key is to look not only at what people want, but also at what they fear. Do those who pose themselves as an alternative to the royals offer the populace what they want, or what they fear? It makes a difference.

There are a whole lot of people in The Kingdom who will gladly send money and praise to sustain AQ in their fight against the infidel, as long as that fight is somewhere else. That doesn't mean they want AQ in charge of The Kingdom. Most of them know all too well where that would lead, and I don't think they don't want to go there.