Skip to main content
opinion

Alan Jamieson is the author of Faith and Sword: A Short History of Christian-Muslim Conflict.

An authoritarian political regime is traditionally at its most vulnerable when it attempts reform. The efforts of the Bourbon monarchy to reform led to its collapse in the French Revolution of 1789. Mikhail Gorbachev's attempts to reform the Soviet Union led to its dissolution at the end of 1991.

Today, we are witnessing a determined attempt to reform the authoritarian monarchy of Saudi Arabia. King Salman is head of the kingdom, but the driving force in the reform and modernization program is his son Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS. The son aims to diversify Saudi Arabia's economy away from dependence on oil, to modernize its political and social structure, and to return it to "moderate Islam."

Historians will no doubt be mystified to learn that the House of Saud has ever been committed to "moderate Islam." The basis of the power of the Saudi monarchy has since the 18th century been its link with the radical Islamic fundamentalism of the Sunni Wahhabi sect. The unspoken bargain is simple: the Wahhabi clerics support the House of Saud, and in return the Saudi monarchy remains true to Wahhabi doctrine at home and spreads it throughout the Muslim world.

It would appear that Prince Mohammed and his father are prepared to break this long-standing agreement. Two noted clerics were arrested in September as alleged Islamists. The unprecedented terrorist attack on the royal palace in Jeddah the next month may have been in retaliation for this action. Now, many Saudi princes have been arrested, supposedly for corruption, but more likely as a calculated power grab within the royal family. These are highly provocative actions and may yet cause a wider violent reaction. The Saudi armed forces are increasingly demoralized by the apparently endless war in Yemen into which Prince Mohammed thrust them. Even the national guard, the traditional tribal bodyguard of the House of Saud, is said to be alienated by recent changes.

The revolution being pushed by Prince Mohammed in Saudi Arabia could all too easily provoke a counter-revolution led by Muslim clerics and the military. In such an event, the best the West could hope for would be the replacement of one Saudi prince by another, with a return to business as usual. However, once revolutionary change has begun, who can say where it might lead?

Muslim clerics might be perfectly happy with the restoration of their old bargain with the House of Saud under a new representative of that royal house. However, what if they were to decide that they can no longer trust the Saudi monarchy? On the other side of the Gulf is the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's leading theocracy, where the rule of Shia Muslim clerics has endured for almost 40 years.

Although Shia and Sunni Muslims are often hostile to each other and Sunnis usually see clerics as advising, rather than replacing, the ruler, the Iranian political model may not be unattractive to the Wahhabi clerics. They could dispense with the House of Saud altogether and rule a Sunni Islamic Republic of Arabia themselves.

Such a development would no doubt horrify the United States and its allies, but it is not impossible. Any kind of serious political unrest in Saudi Arabia has the potential to drive up world oil prices and destabilize the international economy. The upheavals in Syria and Iraq in recent years are said to have put the Middle East into the melting pot. Major instability in Saudi Arabia would accelerate this process in a dramatic fashion.

Although many people in the West support the reform and modernization program being pushed by Prince Mohammed in Saudi Arabia, they must realize that, historically, the odds are against him succeeding. Or rather, once he sets Saudi Arabia on the course of revolutionary change, he cannot be sure where this revolution will end and who the final victors will be.

Interact with The Globe