by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*
Not all observers
of Middle East affairs should be surprised by the handover of “Emirship” in
Qatar. Although it is refreshing to see an Arab ruler step aside without an act
of God (death), a coup, or a Spring. According to Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani,
the transfer is a natural step: “The time has come to open a new page in the
journey of our nation that would have a new generation carry the
responsibilities ... with their innovative ideas." If the 61-year old Emir
were interested in democracy (which the Emir wished for the rest of the Arab
world, but not his own country), he could have found a more skilled and
experienced leader other than his 33-year young son. Therefore, other compelling
reasons must have forced this shrewd politician and ambitious operator to step
aside now.
Close friends of
the Emir have indicated that he planned to replace his Prime Minister with his
son this August and then transition him to become the Emir after six months.
The sudden change indicates that the Emir is fearful that one of two of his
biggest achievements nationally and internationally will finally apply to him:
a military coup or the Arab Spring.
Despite the
seeming calmness, tensions lurk under the surface. Many Qataris were not happy
with the way the Emir removed his father and they are not happy with him
involving Qatar in too many regional conflicts. Apparently, he feared that he
will be deposed by force--just as he did to his father--or by the Arab Spring,
which deposed some of his Arab colleagues—events in which he played the lead
role, too.
The military
coup that he led used violence to end his father’s rule and to secure his own.
Afterwards, he needed to marginalize some of the clans that benefited from his
father. To achieve that goal, he engineered population control and transfer,
brought the security forces under his control, and established healthy
relations with his neighbors.
Globally, with
his prized al-Jazeera satellite television station, he created many enemies and
helped removed some of them. His direct role in ending Qaddafi’s rule is well
documented, but the most dangerous act was his intervention in Syria. He put much
of his energies and resources into making sure that Assad was
removed from power. Reportedly, he told some of his visitors that he feels that,
“it is either Assad or Hamad.” (Trust me, it rhymes even better in Arabic). Obviously,
willingly handing over power to his “trusted” (his telling description) son is the best option for him.
That has nothing to do with democracy or being progressive. It is about self-preservation.
Handing over “power” to a “loyal” son would allow him to continue to influence
the direction of a country that is run more like a business than a modern state.
His huge portrait hanging on the wall behind his nervous son when the latter was giving his first
speech as Emir is indicative of that possibility.
What the new
Emir did not mention in his first speech is in fact the issue that forced his
father to step aside now rather than later: the crisis in Syria. It is unusual
to avoid addressing an issue for which his country contributed $3.4 billion and
on which his father staked his reputation unless he intends a change in the
strategy. The next few days will bring more clues.
In the end, this
handover in Qatar is the best option for an ambitious ruler with a streak of narcissistic
sense of grandeur and a serious case of justified paranoia given the number of
friends and family members he betrayed. It will be up to his son to actually
bring Qatar to representative governance or continue the tradition of clan
rule.
______________________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University
of Iowa. Opinions are the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest; not
speaking for the university or any other organization with which he is
affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...