SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Something is definitely going on in Saudi Arabia:
Saudi authorities arrested at least 11 princes, several current ministers and dozens of former ministers in a sweeping move reportedly designed to consolidate power for the son of King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud. According to media reports citing Saudi-owned television network Al Arabiya, an anti-corruption committee ordered the arrests hours after King Salman directed the creation of the committee, headed by his favorite son and adviser, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The committee was established by the royal decree, The Associated Press reports, "due to the propensity of some people for abuse, putting their personal interest above public interest, and stealing public funds." Billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is among those detained, The Wall Street Journal reports. Alwaleed holds stakes in some of the world's major companies, including Apple and Twitter.
Remember Prince Alwaleed? Bitcoin could outlive him.
It's unclear what those arrested are accused of doing, but Al-Arabiya reported that new investigations into the 2009 Jeddah floods and 2012 MERS virus outbreak have been launched.
Separately, the heads of the Saudi National Guard and Saudi Royal Navy have also been replaced.
BBC notes that the reform faction is in control here:
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says Prince Mohammed is moving to consolidate his growing power while spearheading a reform programme. [...] Prince Mohammed recently said the return of "moderate Islam" was key to his plans to modernise Saudi Arabia. Addressing an economic conference in Riyadh, he vowed to "eradicate the remnants of extremism very soon". Last year, Prince Mohammed unveiled a wide-ranging plan to bring social and economic change to the oil-dependent kingdom.
Some Soylentils have been skeptical of Saudi Arabia's recent moves towards liberalization (some listed below). Has this apparent purge of internal political opposition changed your mind about the viability of these reforms?
Also at NYT and Recode, which notes that the arrest of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a potential setback for Saudi Arabia's tech ambitions (Alwaleed has had stakes in Apple, Twitter, and Lyft).
Previously: SoftBank May Sell 25% of ARM to Vision Fund; Chairman Meets With Saudi King
Saudi Arabia, UAE to Donate to Women Entrepreneurs Fund
Saudi Arabia to Lift Ban on Online VoIP and Video Calling Services
Saudi Arabia Will Lift Ban on Women Drivers Next Year
Saudi Arabia Planning $500 Billion Megacity and Business Zone
Robot Granted "Citizenship" in Saudi Arabia, Sparking Backlash
Saudi Arabia Announced Plans to Extract Uranium for Domestic Nuclear Power Program
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 06 2017, @05:22PM (13 children)
Monarchs with real authority (unlike, say, Japan's imperial family) are first and foremost concerned with remaining in power, and since they're monarchs they can and will kill off their opponents whenever it suits them.
And I should point out that the main difference between a dictator and a monarch is the titles they use. There's no real difference in the principles used to organize government in, say, North Korea versus Bahrain.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 06 2017, @05:39PM (2 children)
Not sure that is totally true.
A huge wealth concentrated and enormous cash inflow in the hands of a leader (be he monarch or dictator) buys a lot of loyalty, where threat of execution via anti-aircraft gun buys fear and loathing.
A subject of the Monarch may actually lift a finger in his majesty's defense. If for no other reason than to preserve his own revenue stream.
Not sure that works for the dictator.
Classic carrot and stick situation.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 06 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)
Both Bahrain and North Korea use both the carrot (wealth and/or power given out by the head of state) and the stick (threats of execution).
For example, as far as outsiders can tell, North Koreans are pretty eager to join the military. Why? Because soldiers get fed before civilians do. But of course North Koreans also face the constant threat of execution by their government.
Bahrain of course has oil money coming in that the monarch can dole out as he sees fit. That said, a major reason Bahrain's monarch wasn't overthrown during the "Arab Spring" protests is that he simply had a bunch of the protesters killed (this didn't get a lot of press in the West because Bahrain is generally friendly to Western governments).
And in both nations, I'm sure you'll find True Believers who genuinely support their nations' leaders. Propaganda is good for that sort of thing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @08:09PM
It's a lot more nuanced than this. In North Korea there is only one ethnic group, where as in Bhahrain there are two (yes technically both Arabs). The Sunnis, which are in power, only represent about 40% of the permanent population (just like any other Gulf state there is a huge amount of guest workers that do the actual work). But they tend to immigrate lot of Sunnis from other nearby countries (like Saudi Arabia) to work in their security apparatus. The Shia "majority" has long been oppressed, and is keen to overthrow the Sunni rule with help of Iran, but many of their recent plots have been very expertly disassembled before they could happen.
The rulers enjoy support from the 40% Sunni population, thus it is not the case of a despot at the top. In such a case a revolution is unlikely to succeed unless there is a direct outside intervention. And any time there is even a hint of unrest, Saudi Arabia sends in armored convoys of troops to help put down the current troubles over the causeway that links the two countries. (See example [wikipedia.org])
It is a very strange land from what I have read. Think about a less conservative Islamic country that has May 1st as a national holiday and universal healthcare.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @05:46PM
Liberalization (in some but not every aspect) can happen even with the Saudi royals remaining in control of the government. See the rest of this comment. [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 06 2017, @06:26PM (4 children)
The difference between a monarch and a dictator is about three generations. If the descendants of a dictator hold power for three generations, then he's a effectively a monarch, no matter how you translate the words. Socially a monarch has a traditional inherited train of power behind him that people accept, so they are more willing to accept one of his descendants as heir to power than some outsider. Don't take this too literally. In Anglo-saxon times the next king would be the heir a certain degree of relationship to the current king selected by, I believe it was called, the council of elders (elderly powerful nobles). So there could be lots of contenders. I believe that the candidates included the sons of the current king and also his nephews. I don't think daughters or neices were ever selected, though if you go further back before the united country they sometimes were...but probably only under unusual circumstances. But some groups preferred leadership to pass to the sons of a sister of the current king...and I believe it's from these groups that we get the word "king".
So there *is* a difference between a king and a dictator, but it's not a sharp distinction. William of Normandy had a right to the throne of England, it was just a very secondary and watered down right. He would never have been selected by the council, because his power-base was outside of England. So he required massive military force to hold the throne. His son needed a lot less force...and not just because there'd been established a new nobility, in fact that was a cause of much of the on-going unrest. Even so, William of Normandy was a king. He was someone who *could* have been selected by the council. But it would also be fair to call him a dictator. He was an usurper who held power by massive military force.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 06 2017, @08:20PM (3 children)
The council of elders in Anglo-Saxon England was known as the Witenagemot, and they selected Harold Godwinson as king when both William and Harald Hardrada of Norway had claims to the throne.
Harold defeated an invasion by Harald Hardrada but could not also see off William and was killed at Hastings.
William's claim to the throne was pretty dubious really, Edward the Confessor was his cousin and had been forced into making William his heir, but William was good at the conquering bit.
Anglo-Saxon kings needed the support of the Witenagemot as they did not rule over the country directly, but through the Theyns and clergy, so William put his own people into those positions (largely).
End of history lesson for today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @10:50PM
Thanks.
Now back to the regular information-free programming from our familiar right-wing puppets. This place is becoming almost unreadable lately.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:23AM (1 child)
Well in addition to that he had the blessing and support of the Pope - the invasion of England was actually an early crusade. This was a very interesting period of time from that point of view - this was arguably an early and successful crusade. William conquered with the Popes help and then he proceeded to aid the Pope in removing traditionalist clergy and replacing them with men loyal to Rome.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:06PM
Quite right. I didn't want to turn my comment into a full on lecture, (unless anyone needs some credits for a paper?) but we forget how politically powerful the Church was during the Middle Ages.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday November 06 2017, @11:03PM (3 children)
No, that's not the difference at all.
The difference is that a dictator (very few if any actually use that title, btw, they're typically called 'President' or something similar) is formally above the law while a monarch is theoretically just as subject to it as anyone else.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by dry on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:15AM (2 children)
Actually Monarchs have often been above the law. Even today, the Queen of England is above the law. She doesn't bother with things like license plates for her car or even licenses for her dogs because she is above the law. Since she personifies the courts, she can't be hauled into court as she is the court.
On the other hand, there is Parliament, which today (and since 1688 if not before) is Supreme and can fire her and is in charge of the succession.
Going back a ways, most Kings were above the law, though they usually had to play nice to keep the support of the people. Nobody likes a despot.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:51AM (1 child)
The Queen of England is not above the law. She may well have an exemption for license plates, and I imagine if a dog-catcher ever had the opportunity to check her license he would have more important things to do at the moment, but that doesn't make you above the law. The Queen of England, meaning the current human to occupy the throne, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary etc. is not above the law in any sense of the word. Her authority was granted to her by the law; now in her case, we may well remark that the law seems to give her a great deal more authority than she has ever used; and that sober observers have often expressed skepticism that the legal authority is even usable at this point; and yes indeed that those UK Courts claim to operate in her name which could certainly lead one to doubt their ability to bring her to heel should they need to (except that contradicts directly all those learned individuals that claim her legal authority is fictive and unusable - one of those might be true but not both at once surely?) But none of this in any way weakens the conclusion that she owes her office to the law, and her powers are bound by the law, rather than the other way around.
The office itself might be in some sense placed above the law, yes, but the person occupying the office is not.
"Going back a ways, most Kings were above the law, though they usually had to play nice to keep the support of the people. Nobody likes a despot."
Well I'm not really sure how far back you're trying to go, and I'm not sure you are either.
Certainly there was an earlier time when the King of England had significant personal power, there was a time when people took seriously the 'divine right of kings' to rule.
The 'divine right of kings,' by the way, was an invention of the roman "christian" church. Well no I can't credit them with inventing it, or anything else, but at any rate they introduced it quite deliberately, and like many of their adaptions there was a very specific way this helped them to spread their religion and thus their authority. This was because the traditional Kings in pagan Europe had nowhere near absolute power. Just like dear Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, they were men appointed by law to serve the law, not dictators or tyrants. The details differed from tribe to tribe but these were most often men elected by an assembly of nobles, to serve specific duties typically concerned with religious ceremonies and war, whose powers were limited and whose office could be retracted as easily as it was given.
The moment one of these Kings proclaimed his realm Christian, he would apply Christian law, NOW he's nearly an absolute ruler. Now the nobles can no longer depose him. Only the Pope.
Historically, well in Sweden the next step was to call that noble council back together, get them real drunk, then murder them all in the night.
No, Virginia, the Pope was not muslim.
Anyhow, going back a bit further, in tribal organizations, you do have dictators occasionally, and you see that in chimps too. But the funny thing is, most people naïvely expect that to be every case, or at least the norm... nah. It's actually pretty rare. The reason is because it's unstable. Sure you're the biggest baddest chimpanzee, you decide you're in charge, you can do what you want, right?
Not really. You're number 1 but if it's a healthy tribe or chimpanzee troop you aren't the only badass. You need at the very least 2 more badasses, minimum, or your group is just too vulnerable to other groups to last. And if you're number 1, but number 2 and 3 decide enough's enough and team up, they're probably going to get you. In a chimp troop the dictator literally gets dismembered alive, it's disturbing, and I'm sure our species is no less so in similar situations. And look, even if you manage to beat the odds and take down number 2 and 3 when they team up on you, uh, how are you going to keep the neighbor tribe with 5 up and coming badasses out now, did you think of that?
So no, typically the leader doesn't even want to take that dictator role. It's just too dangerous. The leader is typically one that pays attention to all the other members and knows what they need, and provides it often enough to keep them in his dept. And that's the very core, the very start, of the leader being subject to the law. He can keep the others in line most effectively precisely because he has a reputation for staying in line himself.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:47AM
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#Other_immunities [wikipedia.org]
Amongst other references, there's also http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625 [royalcentral.co.uk] which includes this quote from the official Monarchy website,
You seem to be confusing being above the law and acting as you're above the law. And as you say, the Queens position comes from the law as legislated by Parliament and has since the Tudor times and especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
How the pre-conquest Kings became King seems to be somewhat lost to history as various 19th century historians elevated the rules that were followed to add even more legitimacy to Parliaments supremacy.
William the Conqueror did rule as a absolute monarch along with his descendants though of course they needed the support of the Barony. By Henry VII Parliament had enough power that Henry had to have them back date his accession to the Crown by a day so he could prosecute his rivals as being treasonous but he did become King by basically defeating the King in battle and claiming the Crown and having the power to bully Parliament in to doing what he wanted. His son Henry the 8th also had a lot of power but still had to get Parliament to agree to the execution of some wives and the succession became a matter of legislation, which was why Lady Jane was executed even though Edward had declared her his successor. Then of course the Stuarts, who really did believe in the divine right of kings and suffered for it.