Blog Archives

Why Saudi Arabia Can Not, And Will Not, Democratize

5/30/2015

A great deal of effort has been
expended over the years
trying to get the Kings of
Saudi Arabia to introduce key
democratic freedoms. These
efforts miss a key reality
about the monarchs of Saudi
Arabia:
they are themselves trapped in a government system with
little ability to change it. It might seem strange to think of an
absolute monarch as being 'trapped' so I will explain.

Consider the cases of Jordan and Morocco. While neither is a
true democracy, both have moved in that direction and are
now only constrained by certain cultural realities that I will
come back to shortly. Monarchs in both countries have been
able to grant democratic freedoms so why are the Kings of
Saudi Arabia constrained? The granting of democratic
freedoms is a power-sharing arrangement. In both Jordan
and Morocco the Kings rule with their families playing little part in government. Granting democratic freedoms can be
done as quickly as the kings desire to do so and can be done
very quickly if need be. In Saudi Arabia it is much different.
The Al Saud hold all key government posts as well as
determining who the next king will be. Democratic reforms
need widespread support among members of the royal family
and cannot be brought about quickly. Most importantly, no
democratic reforms can be brought about by the king without
lessening the power of the Al Saud.

King Salman

On one hand filling all government
positions with family members has
ensured the monarchy will not be
overthrown as several other Arab
monarchies were. On the other
hand this institutionalized
nepotism has created unbelievable
amounts of corruption and made
peaceful, top-directed reforms all
but impossible.

The cause of Saudi Arabia's woes is the tribalism present
throughout the country and other states in the region. Kinship
plays an important role in how government works in Saudi
Arabia. It is often the case that 'issues' tend to take a backseat
to 'allegiances'. Indeed, it is the ability of rulers to keep local
leaders 'onside' that determines stability. This often is
accomplished through payouts. In Jordan and Morocco the
problem is less pronounced but still hinders democratization. Jordan is noted for having high levels of corruption despite efforts to stop it.

Strictly speaking, in a tribal society nepotism, favoritism, and
bribes are not corruption as we consider them. But neither are
they useful for the operation of a state. Saudi Arabia has been
able to use its immense oil wealth to ensure the system works
smoothly but that can only work so long. Ironically, the Al Saud is the greatest hindrance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In most respects the Al Saud have come to resemble a type of
nobility within Saudi Arabia. There are a few ways the Kings
of Saudi Arabia (and it will take more than one) can go about
freeing themselves from this 'tyranny of cousins'. For starters
they need to consolidate rule within one branch of the family.
As long as the Al Saud is consulted every 10-30 years on who
the next king will be they will wield tremendous power.
Getting them to give up this power will be tricky but it may
well involve some camel trading (not literally...). In exchange for the office of the king being made hereditary in one line
the other members of the family might be given separate hereditary titles, lands, and a British-style House of Lords.
Now, it might seem this would entrench the power of the Al
Saud, and it would, but only in the short term. It would also
accomplish two key goals: allow a truly democratic lower
house to be created and sow factionalism among the Al Saud.
In truth such factionalism already exists but is muted in the interest of family unity. Separate titles and lands would
undermine this unity. Realistically, most government positions would still be filled by the Al Saud. Much like the British House of Lords once was the 'House of Al Saud' will be
in a vice-grip of a (still relatively powerless) House of Commons and a king who in his own interest can make common cause with the elected representatives. At the same time, the factions within the Al Saud will start looking to the elected chamber for allies. When this happens the collective power of the Al Saud will be broken.

Not enough emblems have scimitars these days.

Now the scenario above is only one of several that could play out and even this one has not been taken to its end point of producing a constitutional monarchy for Saudi Arabia. Some might ask why, if I value democracy so much, I don't just call for a revolution? Fair question. Here is my answer: win or lose it will be a bloodbath resulting in a military dictatorship. The
Al Saud currently controls all aspects of government and it is
in their interest to put down any revolution that starts up. If
a revolution were to miraculously succeed it would face a number of issues: the cultural divide between the Hejaz and
the Najd, the tribalism I mentioned earlier, the clerical faction (which I didn't deal with here but could be dealt with in a similar manner to what I suggested for the Al Saud), and the
real possibility some member of the Al Saud will make
attempt #4 at establishing a kingdom. These issues would be hard for an experienced republic to deal with let alone one
just set up. So as happened in Egypt the people will have a republican strong man as their leader. In the modern world
revolutions don't produce better monarchies, they produce worse republics.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Black Spider Memos

5/19/2015

The British Government has at
last published the 'Black Spider'
memos (so called due to the
margin notes and underlining the
Prince adds in black ink). To the
disappointment of republicans
and conspiracy theorists the
memos did not include;
demands, threats, plans for one
world government, partisan
attacks, gibberish, or political
sensitive issues. What the memos
did reveal is the Prince's concern for issues not likely to be on the
government's radar. In short they show Prince Charles
making appropriate use of The Right to Encourage & The
Right to Warn. Others have already done a good job of
outlining the importance of these letters so I will (try) not re-tread here. Instead, here are the direct links to each piece of
correspondence.

Correspondence with the Prime Minister

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Education

Correspondence with the Minister for Environment

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Health

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Office

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

The Prince has every right to make his views known. His
involvement in each area discussed has been long-term and
hands-on. It is no exaggeration to say he has far more expertise on some cabinet portfolios than the ministers themselves. Indeed, the turnover in cabinet has been a source
of frustration for the Prince as each new minister comes into
the job with little knowledge of what work has already been
done and what still needs attention. Much like the Queen, the Prince is a valuable source of institutional knowledge that ministers have always been appreciative of.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Happy Victoria Day!

5/18/2015

Today is not only a day for celebrating the birthday of a long-dead monarch. Nor is it only our current monarch's official birthday. Today is for celebrating the Canadian monarchy itself. It is the foundation of our constitutional government, a guarantor of our liberties, an all-weather friend, and reminder of our responsibilities to the past & future.

While Canada Day has become a day to celebrate the greatness of Canada, I feel Victoria Day has become a day to celebrate the freedom of Canada. We live in a country were you can drive from one end to the other without the need to pass through a security checkpoint. A country where a trip to the camp by the lake for a weekend is not a bullet point in some secret government file. A country where you can be as completely irreverent towards Queen & Country as you damn well please and you won't be hauled off to a secret tribunal never to be seen again. Victoria Day is to me a time to reflect on the freedoms enjoyed under the sovereignty of the Maple Crown and to reflect on whether those freedoms are still secure.

Have a Happy Victoria Day,
A Kisaragi Colour

Victoria Day gathering, 1854

The Big Shift

5/14/2015

I have been reading The Big Shift by Darrell Bricker and
John Ibbitson. The central argument about why the
Conservative Party won, and will continue to win, is
interesting but not the subject of this article. Political parties
come and go but the monarchy endures forever. No, what
interested me is some of points the authors used to back their
arguments.

At one point they argue that Canada have become more
confident in itself as a nation. While the book argues that this
is why the 'frail nation' view of a country eternally beset by
French-English hostility has been largely discredited I think
it applies equally well to republicans. The republican shtick
that Canada needs to 'grow up' and 'cut the apron strings' so it
can stop being so 'colonial' are essentially the point of view of
someone with an inferiority complex. The idea that Canada
has grown up (and did so with the monarchy) cannot be
accepted by republicans. To acknowledge this fact would
mean admitting they are fighting against a Canadian, rather
than foreign, institution. A Canada that is confident in itself,
its institutions, its past, and its traditions is not at all useful
to republicans.

A second point raised in the book is that concerns what issues
Canadians value and whether they have confidence that
governments can 'fix' problems that occur within them. It is
an interesting chart in its own right but I find its implications
for the monarchy equally intriguing. While the monarchy was
not included it does include issues related to culture, national
unity, and First Nations. All three rank low on the importance
scale but, with the exception of culture, they are also pretty
low on the can-we-fix-it scale. That First Nations ended up so
low on both scales is unfortunate since they have many long-
term issues that need addressed. The monarchy is the
quintessential low-importance issue. Even those who are
opposed to it acknowledge this fact. Likewise, if Canadians
don't feel issues that could be addressed by legislation can be
solved they are not going to think issues that require
constitutional reform will either. Also note that the issues
most likely to be seen as unworkable are the 'Big Idea' issues.
In this poll Canadians displayed a marked preference for
issues that require tinkering, not wholesale reform.

The republican cause has always had difficulty due to the
amending formula in the constitution. But as long as there
was a public appetite for change there was a chance they could
succeed. As long as Canadians were embarrassed by their past and feeling envious of other countries there was hope. The
republicans now have neither. The two points raised above
rendered republicanism deader than dead. I'm sure
republicans will deny it. That is but one of their rights in our
fair dominion. So while I fully expect there to still be court
challenges and poorly-attended protests we should remember
that more and more they represent a Canada left behind. A
Canada that refused to grow up.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Queen Victoria's Humour

5/7/2015

There is a certain impression that
Queen Victoria did not have a sense
of humour. This is in fact false. The
impression was gained for three
primary reasons.

Most of the pictures people see of the
Queen show her with a blank
expression. The first thing to
consider is that photography was still
in its infancy at the time. Camera
exposure times were long meaning
one had to keep still for extended
periods of time. Smiling was only good if you wanted a blurry
picture.

The second consideration was that the Queen felt that if she
smiled in public the people might think her frivolous. She was
anxious to avoid this as she was unpopular during the early
part of her reign. In private she is said to have often "roared
with laughter". Indeed a photo from 1887 shows her to be in
much better spirits in public:

The third reason is due to to a phrase often attributed to her; "We are not amused." Supposedly it was said at Windsor
Castle after a particular male attendee at her court told a
somewhat lewd joke in front of the Queen and the other women present. Speaking for all the women present (hence the 'we') she replied with the famous phrase. While an
interesting account there is little hard evidence the Queen
ever said it or, for that matter, that the event even occurred.

This raises the interesting question of why the story gained
such traction. One possibility is that it was commenting on
the changed decorum of the court. Her predecessors had been
somewhat lacking in the morals department and it is possible
such raunchy humour was common then. The Queen, in her
efforts to re-create the monarchy as a role model for society
would be disinclined to tolerate the same kind of behavior
her father had. The men at the court were perhaps not pleased
with such a development. If so, the Queen got the last laugh as
she reigned for 63 years.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Native Kingship: Canada's Hereditary Chiefs

5/2/2015

Overview

Before the arrival of the Europeans Canada's First Nations
had already established thriving communities across the
continent. In almost of of these societies leadership was in the
hands of hereditary chiefs. These chiefs had roles that
encompassed both secular and spiritual concerns. Decision-
making was based on consensus with the chief being advised
by groups of elders and the larger community. These chiefs served as monarchs over fairly small groups and areas. In
short, monarchy was well-established in Canada before the
arrival of the Europeans. Monarchy is a truly worldwide
phenomenon; only the details have differed.

There is a certain perception that monarchies tended to hold
(and make use of) more power the further back in time you
look. This is not strictly true. Monarchy has been adapted to
the needs of each community throughout time. Early hunter-
gatherers didn't need someone to pass laws nor did the first
farmers. In those times the monarch's role was that of a
peacekeeper, referee, guide, and representative of the group.
As societies grew and developed monarchs took on more
roles. The personal power of monarchs can be conceptualized
as being bell-shaped over time. That is not to say that one type of monarch is more 'true' than another but to emphasize that monarchs reflect the needs of their societies. The Queen today
shares more similarities with Canada's hereditary chiefs
regarding role/purpose than many of Her Majesty's
predecessors! The differences between an hereditary chief and
Canada's monarch are slight in theory but they are also slight
in practice.

In a study in 1997, Manley Begay identified some basic
commonalities in how First Nations conceived of good and
effective leadership. Begay divided them into five common
traits:

"First, Native meanings of leader do not necessarily imply the accumulation of wealth (property and goods). Rather, there is an emphasis on position and role.
Second, Native leadership terminology implies a proactive approach with the use of terms like “to direct” and “leads the people.”
Third, a Native leader works with the people, rather than commanding or having power over them.
Fourth, there is a recognition that leadership has male and female aspects.
Fifth, the religious and spiritual aspects of leadership are important.”

You can use the same language to describe our current
conception of a monarch who reigns but does not rule. And
indeed many early settlers described the chiefs they
encountered in monarchical terms. I am unsure when exactly
this stopped but it seems to have gone along with a decrease
in the status of the First Nations.

'The Four Mohawk Kings', a set of paintings from the 1700s

Specific Examples

With over 600 separate First Nations in Canada a tribe by tribe examination of their Hereditary Chief Traditions is out of the question. However, a few examples may be illustrative.

Ogimà of the Algonquian
I contacting Chief Dominique Rankin about the Hereditary
Chief Tradition among Quebec's First Nations. He was able to
give me some insight into the traditions among the Algonquian. He described the chief's role as "being there to
awaken the memory of our ancestors" and to "become as the
protectors of all that is sacred". He also stated that they serve
to teach the future generations. The Hereditary Chiefs are in
direct line of decent for several generations and are recognized by the circles of elders. As prevails among most of
Canada's First Nations the chief elected under the provisions
of the Indian Act has taken over the political role.

Okimaw of the Cree
Professor Stonechild of the First Nations University of Canada
provided some background on the Cree traditions (as well as some information on the effects of the Indian Act on First
Nations leadership). She described the role of Hereditary
chiefs as being that of "role models, including being spiritual leaders".

Tyee Ha’wilth and Ha’wiih of the Tseshaht
The Tseshaht First Nation has a good overview of their tradition on their website.
Of note is how they describe Chief Adam Shewish: "He will never be replaced in our Parliament. He was the voice of reason, the voice of vision, the voice of calm, the voice of compassion, and, forever, the voice of praise.”
The echo of Bagehot's three rights of monarchs is unmistakable; the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, & the right to warn.

Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en
Again I am going to rely on an outside link to explain the tradition.

The Indian Act

Hereditary chiefs continued to hold important positions in
their societies until the 1870s when the Canadian Government
passed the Indian Act. Tribes were to have 'band
governments' with elected leaders carrying out government
actions. These leaders (also called chiefs) would be elected
every two years. In a single move the hereditary chiefs were
undermined and divisions created in their communities. But
this was very much the point:

"The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change."
~Sir John A Macdonald, 1887

By forcing a republican system on the First Nations the
government undermined the very individuals who had the respect among the tribes to lead opposition to their plans. Professor Stonechild puts it simply enough; "The Indian Act
undermined all such positions." Even among the few First
Nations who did not have Hereditary Chiefs (such as the
Iroquois or tribes that lost their chiefs) choosing leaders was
based on consensus, not majoritarian vote.

The sidelining of so many hereditary chiefs in favour of what
is essentially a presidential regime marks the Indian Act as
Canada's most republican piece of legislation ever passed.

Hereditary Chiefs Today

While the Indian Act was a blow to Canada's Hereditary Chief
Traditions it did not end them completely. Some First Nations
have kept their hereditary chiefs on an informal basis.
However, the division created by the Indian Act still remains
and in some First Nation communities the hereditary chiefs
and elected chiefs are at odds with each other.

A mixed procession of elected & hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en

The Future?

Canada has a lot of issues to fix in regards to its dealing with
its First Nations and this is one issue that may well get
overlooked. I feel the hereditary chiefs should be allowed to
have a formal role in the band governments. This would
restore traditions successive governments very much tried to
destroy. It would also put the reserves on track for better governance as they would now be run as constitutional monarchies. But this is just my opinion and it is the First
Nations who need to want to restore their hereditary chiefs
for it to happen.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour