Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Monday November 06 2017, @04:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the cleaning-house dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 06 2017, @06:26PM (4 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:26PM (#593221) Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 06 2017, @08:20PM (3 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 06 2017, @08:20PM (#593284)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @10:50PM (#593339)

      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)

      by Arik (4543) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:23AM (#593466) Journal
      "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."

      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

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:06PM (#593767)

        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.