It would have been helpful to note that unlike the majority of Kings and Presidents in the region, the Alaouite dynasty runs back centuries in Morocco and has a real and profound legitimacy in Morocco.

The real problem is not the constitution but the habits, one can change the constitution, but the rather deep seated habits are another matter.

I note by the way that Makhzen in local usage is not storehouse, it is The Treasury.

What is needed is people in both government and opposition who think a transition from despotism to the rule of law would be a good thing.

Americans are perhaps especially likely to assume that everyone who opposes a tyranny in Country X is committed to its opposite, which we define as democracy, freedom, the rule of law and all the rest of it. In fact, this is hardly ever true. In most countries politics is about who has the right to give orders, and always has been. Middle Eastern monarchies in particular, when they have been overthrown, have not been replaced by democracies but by dictatorships, leaving their countries less free than they were before.

A monarchy with popular legitimacy can serve as an anchor for those seeking to establish a rule of law consistent with that of the developed Western world, provided that the king is wise and that he lives long enough. Nations as diverse as Spain, Jordan and Thailand are examples in recent history. All these countries had in common that they wanted (or at least felt they needed) to modernize their legal systems; each has succeeded to a different extent, but in each case the monarchy provided a fixed point of reference, allowing those who seeking to change practice to claim loyalty to principle. Many examples can be cited of countries where a monarchy served no such purpose; power is a zero-sum game, and if most questions are to be decided by the rule of law fewer can be decided by the monarch. This means any monarchy must not only be content to give up some power, but must also have many people willing to have it exercised in some other way.

Jordan?

Jordan?

You've never bloody actually lived in Jordan have you.

Spain, yes.

Jordan, you're smoking cheap crack. M6 is world's away more genuinely liberal than Abdellah (of course it rather helps that the Alaouine have real legitimacy whereas the Hashemites are imposters imposed by the British and based off a narrow qbaili base).

Jordan.....

I almost spit on myself.

For that matter, one should note that having reasonably legitimate monarchs ("everyone agrees you're in charge and we're your servants") seems to have been very helpful in the development of modern democratic states, starting with 18th-century England. The whole concept of "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition" may be a necessary precursor to the idea of the guys running things being willing to hand over power to this other set of guys without feeling like they're betraying their country.

(Legitimate monarchs don't always work out that way, either -- consider the Bourbons. Then again, if Louis XVI had been someone like William of Orange or Elizabeth I or Juan Carlos of Spain, maybe the French Revolution wouldn't have been what it was.)

I think this is an important subject that hasnt been analyzed deeply enough. The Anglo-nations have a history of power sharing that dates back to at least the 13th century, plus its roots in Athenian and Roman law native to much of Europe. This of course spread (often via war) to the remainder of Europe and later parts of Asia, and generally it seems that the farther from the Anglo/roman/greek roots one gets, the more actual conquest and nation building it took for anything like modern democracy to take shape. Doubtless there are exceptions. We certainly do know that Russia never took to our view of law/self-determinism like Japan or Germany(conquered), or India (British) have. I agree that it may not be purely a question of embracing democracy, as installing law, order, and justice in a meaningful way as the bedrock of the state. I suspect that both are necessary. A democratic state without law is a kleptocracy waiting to happen, and a lawful state without democracy is fascist in nature no matter how benevolent the ruler.

[i]It is a fact that raises a central question here and across the Middle East: What is needed to turn states of despotic whim into genuine nations of law?[/i]

Dan,

The answer is simple. Taxation of an economically independent middle class. Best effects come when combined with a crisis that pressures the king to tax even more.

Unfortunatelly, most of the middle east suffers from the resource curse or too many rents making the state the arbiter/provider of rents.

500 year?

Well, re the resource curse that's not really 'most of the Middle East by any particular standard. The Gulf, Libya, Iraq (potentially), and Algeria. On the other hand, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Yemen (not to mention Sudan) all are resource poor (although Tunisia and Egypt have enough hydrocarbons to buffer themselves).

Most of the MENA region's population actually live in the resource poor countries cited, although indeed the state as rentier is common if clearly now unsustainable in the aforementioned countries.

The Moroccan situation (and I note I work in the region and at present am working on Moroccan related projects) I find relatively encouraging as there is a clear sign of an increase in real rule of law (not merely headliners to make the gullible westerners happy, e.g. Jordan) although the Makhzen system is so grindingly slow with reforms I personally fear the economic liberalisation front needs to be reboosted.

Regardless, living and working in the region, of all the states, the Moroccan developments feel the most organic and internally driven. While perhaps not as show stopping as the Potemkin village shows others like to put on, I wager they are far more real and (if economic growth can be kicked off -which I am betting on [else will be rather poorer]) sustainable.

The key difference for the Moroccan state is that it is old. Morocco as a coherent entity is centuries old, it was never part of the Ottomans and the present dynasty as noted supra runs back centuries, with both Berber and Arab roots. As M6 does appear to genuinely committed to opening up the political space, and as he is young, this should be a long term process, a marathon, not a sprint, if it is genuine. And of course, whatever gestures by the King, the reality is social habits are far more powerful - as indeed most Moroccans say about themselves.

Compare and contrast the nations along the North coast of the Mediterranean (Southern Europe) and the nations along the South coast of the Mediterranean (North Africa). The standout difference between the prosperous, civilized, and advanced North and the hell that is uniformly the Southern nations is Islam.

Spain shows that a nation can recover if Islam is thrown off.

"Well, re the resource curse that's not really 'most of the Middle East by any particular standard. The Gulf, Libya, Iraq (potentially), and Algeria. On the other hand, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Yemen (not to mention Sudan) all are resource poor (although Tunisia and Egypt have enough hydrocarbons to buffer themselves)."

The problem with many of these countries is that they still have many rents in the economy due to immigrant remmitances and financial aid from the US. Since the problem of the resource curse are the resulting rents, the problem remains the same.

Max,

Islam isn't the only difference. There is also a long history of colonization, artificially created states, a slew of arab nationalist-socialist states and so forth. Moreover, the mediterranean countries are closer to the advanced core of Europe which has benefited them through membership to the European union and commerce spill-over effects.

First in regards to Kaufman:
"Well, re the resource curse that's not really 'most of the Middle East by any particular standard. The Gulf, Libya, Iraq (potentially), and Algeria. On the other hand, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Yemen (not to mention Sudan) all are resource poor (although Tunisia and Egypt have enough hydrocarbons to buffer themselves)."

The problem with many of these countries is that they still have many rents in the economy due to immigrant remmitances and financial aid from the US. Since the problem of the resource curse are the resulting rents, the problem remains the same.

I would not put immigrant remittances in the same category as the resource curse - certainly not in the case of the Maghrebine situation.

Aid as a rent - US in regards to Jordan and Egypt, EU/French in regards to Morocco - that I agree with. Terribly distorting.

As to Max, I find ignorant Islamophobia tedious, pedestrian and stupid.

The comment with respect to Spain is doubly stupid for its economic and historical illiteracy. Never mind the fact the Maghreb states are hardly "hells" - indeed as I live in work in the Maghreb I can say they're not bad little places, if sad underachievers.

But let's take the historical issue first. For the unenlightened (of which Max is evidently one), Spain kicked out its Muslims and Jews in 1492 with the fall of the Granada Emirate (although to be accurate some Jews and Muslims, believing the right Catholic prince's promises of tolerance hung on for a bit afterwards and ended up experiencing the tender attentions of the Inquisition as a reward for their gullibility).

The move, by most economic historians and observers not engaged in absurdist ahistorical religious bigotry, was something of an economic catastrophe as both sets made the core of an internationally focused trading community. The Spanish crown, however, got moderately lucky in finding the Americans to fleece and exporpriate in probably one of the world's biggest festivals of rent extraction (setting the stage for the rentier state habits that long predominated in Latin America) which while keeping the Spanish royalty, nobility and other rentier class members in good form for a while, rather ruined the domestic economy (already blessed with the expulsion of unwanted Jews and Muslims, who promptly went off to enrich other lands with their expertise).

Once the Spanish crown managed to piss away its wealth on wars and other fun things that non-productive parasitic rent extractors like to engage in, well Spain then became the impoverished appendage of Europe - along with Portugol - something of a joke really although they did manage a late 19th century/early 20th century spurt of me-too colonial activity and then proceeded to set a nice standard with Franco and his fine stultifying ultra-Catholic fascist regime.

Of course everyone knows how Spain took off during this period... oh wait, it didn't. No, in fact Spain remained fairly impoverished until Franco died, and the Monarchy helped guide the country into joining the EU - and now after vast sums of EU capital have been spent, it's got something approaching a proper infrastructure, etc. Oh yeah, and breaking the death grip of an obscurantist Catholic Church on politics, society and the like.

So, what's this irrational story about "shaking off the Muslim influence"? Queer and bigotted reading of history I would say.

The real difference between the Northern side and the Southern side is histories of colonial rule, poorly developed institutions in the post-colonial period and rather stunningly bad economic policy choices; as well as rather poor access to the honey pot that is EU financing (as well as the relative institutional discipline - although the Greeks and to a lesser extent the Italians seem hell bent on proving that even with such resources and massive transfers, one can still be a chronic under-performer).

this sounds like the old Zakaria - democracy first, or liberalism first, dilemma.

While in GENERAL I dont trust non democratic regimes to build up liberal institutions, and find this especially in the mideast, when there IS a non-democratic regime that IS pursuing genuine liberalization (including a real commitment to rule of law, not just secularization) and that has real domestic legitimacy, I see no problem letting them pursue their path - but be wary of the succession.