A good FP article which supplements Post 15. It opens with:
The Arab Spring was hard on Arab presidents: most of the personalist presidential autocracies are now gone. But no Arab monarchs fell during the Arab Spring. Why did the monarchs fare so well? The strong correlation between monarchism and survival suggests, of course, that monarchism had something (or everything) to do with it.
Ending with:
The rest of the monarchs possessed two key advantages over the presidents in the spring of 2011. First, they profited from comparisons between their rule and that of the presidents.....A second factor also helped the monarchs: they could make credible promises to implement political reforms.....The problem for monarchs going forward, in the wake of the Arab Spring, is that these two factors are not at all permanent....The next time around, promises will not likely be enough: real signs of change will need to be clear. Absent that, the monarchs might wind up going down the road of Bahrain's ruling family, ruling over an embittered population that no longer believes promises of reform. That would not necessarily doom the monarchs, especially the family businesses of the Gulf. But it would send them down a dead end of discord and repression.
Link:http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/pos...rchism_matters