نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.
2 دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Introduction
Political systems cannot simply govern society by following the dictates of others; they therefore require at least some degree of institutional and functional legitimacy. Among Middle Eastern states, the Saudi regime, in addition to enjoying functional legitimacy—including through the provision of relative prosperity and security—continues to benefit from sources of institutional legitimacy. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine how Saudi Arabia benefits from religious–traditional sources of legitimacy.
Literature Review
The issue of legitimacy has been addressed to some extent in studies of Saudi Arabian politics and society. However, these studies have not specifically examined the role of religious–traditional concepts—such as the guardian (walī), consultation (shūrā), oath of allegiance (bayʿa), and domination (sulṭa)—in legitimizing the Saudi political system. The current study sought to fill this gap by examining how these ideas contribute to the legitimacy of the Saudi political order.
Materials and Methods
The present study used the method of textual analysis.
Results and Discussion
The governance of Saudi Arabia, characterized by oligarchic sovereignty, has engaged and continues to engage in processes of legitimization through two broad categories of legitimacy sources: religious sources and customary or traditional sources. Due to the pressures and imperatives generated by globalization, legitimacy has become a persistent concern for the hereditary rule of the House of Saud and a potential Achilles’ heel of the country’s national security doctrine.
The concept of the guardian (walī al-amr, meaning the ruler of the affairs of Muslims) and the legitimization derived from it have been widely invoked by the Saudi regime and by those who support and justify its rule. However, given the character, conduct, and political practices of the Saudi monarchy, legitimization based on this concept can be regarded as an inappropriate metaphor. Some Salafi-Wahhabi scholars, such as Mohammad al-Mass’ari, have consequently subjected the use of walī al-amr as a basis for legitimizing Saudi rule to serious criticism, rejecting the justification of the Saudi political order on these grounds.
The doctrine of dominance and overpowering (istīlāʾ wa ghalaba) provides the Saudi regime with a particularly powerful basis for legitimizing its power. From this perspective, the Saudi political order is, to a considerable extent, shielded from subversive movements and political opposition, as challenges to the ruler are portrayed as an unforgivable sin and an act against the Islamic law. The emergence, however, of jihadi and Salafi currents that challenge this doctrine constitutes an important Achilles’ heel of Saudi legitimization based upon it.
The Saudi regime has also drawn on the tradition of consultation (shūrā) and, more specifically, on the institution of the Shūrā Council to establish and consolidate the foundations of its political authority. The Shūrā Council currently serves as an institutional mechanism through which the Saudi regime invokes the principle of consultation as a source of legitimacy. Nevertheless, given the autocratic character of the monarchical system and the concentration of power within the ruling family, the consultative character of the Saudi political order appears largely symbolic and does little to promote the consolidation or institutionalization of national security.
The Al Saud regime likewise employs the concept of oath of allegiance (bayʿa) to legitimize its rule and political structure. The establishment of the Allegiance Council, composed of members of the Al Saud family and established within the Saudi political system, reflects this same approach. However, internal rivalries within the ruling family, as well as reports of coercion involving members of the royal family during the succession process that brought Mohammed bin Salman to power, constitute significant vulnerabilities in this source of legitimacy.
The endorsement of the Saudi rulers by religious scholars constitutes another important source of legitimacy upon which the Saudi regime relies. These scholars have historically been predominantly Wahhabi in orientation. For some of them, the doctrine of dominance and overpowering (istīlāʾ wa ghalaba), together with the concept of the guardian (walī al-amr), provides an important basis for endorsing the authority of the ruling family. At the same time, a number of Muslim scholars—including some who identify with a Salafi-Wahhabi orientation—have opposed Al Saud rule and rejected both the legitimacy of its political order and attempts to justify its rule through these concepts.
Conclusion
Traditional sources of legitimacy in Saudi Arabia have retained their importance and continue to perform a significant legitimizing function. Reinterpreting traditional concepts while simultaneously drawing on modern sources of legitimacy—including the expansion and strengthening of citizenship rights among different segments of Saudi society—could help prevent a future legitimacy crisis in the country. However, traditional interpretations of concepts such as the guardian (walī al-amr), together with the tensions between the actions of the Saudi regime under the banner of its development programs and traditional understandings of religion, the functions of Islamic governance, and Saudi Arabia’s status as Umm al-Qurā (or the core of nation of the Islamic world) may pose significant challenges. These tensions are likely to intensify competing interpretations of religious concepts and ideas within Saudi society.
کلیدواژهها English
