Democracies in the Middle East with monarchies

The Middle East has been uncharacteristically unstable for much of the last five years. The Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War, the rise of violence against civilians in Iraq, a resurgent al-Qaida, and the unrest in Libya since the overthrow of dictator Muammar Kaddafi, are the more notable examples of this tumult.

While significant blame for this tumult lies with the Obama administration, whose policies have contributed to regional uncertainty, let us for the moment look to two of what are now a rarity in the Middle East -- stable governments -- to determine what hope there might yet be for the region to reclaim a more placid future.

Two of the least turbulent nation-states in the Middle East are the kingdoms of Jordan and Morocco, anchors of stability at opposite ends of the region. While each has its own history, geography and culture, their kings, Mohammad VI of Morocco and Abdullah II of Jordan, share a great deal.

The United States not only emerged out of rebellion against the British monarchy, but subsequently fought several wars (1812, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II -- at least in the Pacific) against emperors, kings and even a Kaiser. Americans do not naturally embrace monarchy, therefore, but perhaps it is time to revive a more favorable view of at least some of them.

Perhaps the best known kingdom is Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, where King Abdullah alone determines war and peace, reform or reaction, and all entanglements, foreign or domestic. While Saudi Arabia is a fascinating case of absolutism emerging in modern times -- with its current name and full territory not being official until 1932 -- in fact it is Morocco and Jordan that have exhibited more success at integrating the ancient and modern in their political systems.

Both of these states, Morocco and Jordan, boast of a dynasty that can trace its lineage to the Prophet Muhammad. While genealogists might question some of the particulars of these family lines, nonetheless the respective claims are strong, and form a strong argument in favor of the legitimacy of both. As descendants of the founder of Islam, these monarchies are particularly well suited to claim the loyalty of the devout, including religious clerics.

This has been an indispensable buttress to both regimes as they have faced the twin Islamist threats of al-Qaida's terrorism and the more broad-based political movements affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and its variants. While terrorism has long been a regional problem -- Jordan had to crush a nationwide Palestinian uprising in the early 1970s, and did so with brutal force -- al-Qaida has been a more recent enemy.

Both Jordan and Morocco have efficient, effective internal security organizations, and have used all means -- law enforcement, intelligence operations, collaboration with the U.S., even military force -- to prevent al-Qaida from becoming an existential threat. Morocco and Jordan have demonstrated that a nation can be fervently Muslim, while at the same time refuting the claims, and defeating the campaigns, of those who would use Islam violently or intolerantly against those who do not share their vision of it.

In terms of more specific political processes, Jordan and Morocco also have faced down the Islamist threat from Brotherhood-like activities. In both countries, parliamentary elections have provided Islamist parties with opportunities for short-term electoral victories.

Unlike in Gaza, Egypt and Tunisia, however, where there were no stronger institutions able to check these movements without resort to extralegal means -- as happened in Egypt, with a military coup -- in both Morocco and Jordan, the two kings -- Mohammed VI and Abdullah II -- have served as effective counterweights to Islamism.

These monarchs, each in his early 50s, retain significant power under their respective constitutions. While parliaments in both countries are elected freely, the king still appoints the prime minister and cabinet officials, has an effective veto, and great moral and executive authority. With these powers, both have succeeded in constraining Islamism in their nations.

While there have been surges of Islamist electoral support, these temporary victories have not led to the untrammeled power that brought Egypt to the brink of civil war and ruined the economy and prospects of the Gaza Strip, two areas where elected Islamists brought little other than suffering to their people.

Both Morocco and Jordan are strong U.S. allies; the sultan of Morocco was actually the first foreign power to recognize the new United States in 1777, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, even if it disagrees on some major issues with Washington, is nonetheless a force of indispensable stability in the Middle East.

While there are still human rights concerns about both countries, over the past decade civil liberties have increased in both states, without the disruption and chaos that has emerged in the wake of the Arab Spring.

Indeed, if reformers in the Middle East and the West believe that freedom, peaceful change and stability are worthy goals, they could do worse than to imitate the paths of Morocco and Jordan: emerging democracies that are nonetheless solid and progressive monarchies.

While the republic continues with good reason to be more popular worldwide, perhaps it is time to be more receptive to monarchy, especially in the case of the Muslim kings that have served as lions of their people, protecting against the jackals of radical Islam in the Middle East.

Wayne Bowen, a U.S. Army veteran, received his Ph.D. in history from Northwestern University. He resides in Cape Girardeau.