I guess my question is specific to the british royal family.
I saw a post online that said “God save the King” and had a photo of the king. The idea of a monarch or reverence for any other type of leader simply because they are the leader is outside of my experience.
I’m not here to disagree or argue, please don’t feel like you need to justify or convince me. I can accept that people value different things.
I would like to understand the appeal the monarchy or even specifically King Charles has for people who respect and support the monarchy.
I’m Saudi, and honestly, if it weren’t for the monarchy, particularly the Crown Prince, we never would have seen the reforms we’ve had, at least not this quickly. The monarchy’s absolute power has been used to bypass conservative religious institutions that had stalled social progress for decades.
Because the leadership doesn’t have to navigate legislative gridlock or worry about election cycles, it can push through massive, transformative changes almost overnight: granting women the right to drive, curbing the sweeping powers of the religious police, opening the country to tourism, entertainment, and cinemas, and launching major economic reforms and giga-projects.
As a woman, I can walk around the city without covering my hair and not be bothered by anyone. Around ten years ago, I could have been arrested for that. That’s where the appeal lies for me.
It’s interesting to read this perspective. In the west, MBS is probably best known for butchering journalists.
The only problem I see with this is: where is the safeguard it doesn’t swing in the other direction when someone new takes over?
If there were no monarchy, it wouldn’t swing in either direction. People would just vote for the most religious and conservative candidates and keep the system exactly where it was. Saudi society isn’t really suited to liberal democracy at the moment because most people don’t actually want it. The only reason these reforms happened is because someone with enough power was able to push them through despite conservative opposition. Could a future ruler reverse some of it? Sure. But without the monarchy, I don’t think we’d have gotten these reforms at all. I’d rather take the risk of occasional backsliding than guarantee no progress whatsoever.
So… this version of the Saudi Royal Family is swining this way. Other versions of the royal family have not.
With a monarchy, you don’t have 4 year cycles. The leadership lasts much longer than that.
Once the safeguard is in place for long enough that it becomes the norm, it becomes harder to reverse.
There’s a LOT of possible problems with a monarchy, but the biggest advantage is much longer leadership cycles reducing the whiplash of policy change.
Thank you for your response! I can understand the appeal of a powerful person who uses that power to protect you.
Interesting.
Is this true in general? Is Mecca (or Medina for that matter) included?
I never been there, but my folks have for Hajj. You can probably guess the country, we have the largest Muslim by population.
So my anecdote for Saudi generally refer to those two particular place.
Included in the sense that Saudi law does not strictly require women to wear a hijab on public streets there, just as in Riyadh or Jeddah, yes. Culturally, however, because Mecca and Medina are the two holiest cities in Islam, virtually all local women and most female visitors will wear a hijab and abaya out of religious devotion and respect for the setting.