Why the Middle East needs more kings

Constitutional monarchy is a cornerstone of many stable democracies – so why are we so keen to avoid it in places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan?

26 September 2015

8:00 AM

26 September 2015

8:00 AM

Watch the videos of 1950s Iraq on YouTube and you glimpse something close to an idyll. It’s true that Pathé News was not big on gritty realism, but history relates that here it was not using a heavily rose-tinted lens; Hugh Trevor-Roper even went so far as to describe Iraq at the time as a Levantine Switzerland. Or you can go to Google Images, tap in ‘1960s Afghan women’ and be offered photographs of a mixed university biology class, and others of young women with short skirts, long hair and smiling faces.

This was life under the kings, and knowing what followed is enough to make a grown man weep. But let’s be hard-headed and forward-looking: the creation of new constitutional monarchies is a sensible solution to such clear and present dangers as Isis. Life without them has been a disaster in the Middle East. Why can’t we bring back the monarchs?

In Iraq the blood started flowing in 1958 when a group of army officers gunned down the royal family. The violence only increased when Saddam Hussein took power in the 1970s, but he did at least bring back one benefit of the old kingdom: stability. So despite it all — the genocide of the Kurds, the invasion of a peaceful and fairly liberal neighbour (the constitutional monarchy of Kuwait) — wise heads cautioned against his removal. Not only did he act as a bulwark against Iran, but like the old monarchy, he protected his own Sunni minority within Iraq. Nevertheless, America and its allies did topple Saddam — and then were somehow surprised when the new democratic republic ill-served the Sunnis. The persecution carried out by the Shia majority wasn’t as great as that carried out by the dictator, but its consequences couldn’t have been more terrible, as it became a devastatingly successful recruiting sergeant for the Sunni terrorists of Isis. The present government is certainly less sectarian, but by now Isis atrocities mean that Sunnis won’t be forming any part of the government in the foreseeable future.

The West cannot clear up the mess that it has made by dropping more bombs from on high. The answer to defeating Islamic State in Iraq lies with ordinary Sunnis, who would cease to tolerate the group if they were re-integrated into their national society and politics. And it is hard to think of a simpler, more practical or faster route to that end than a democratic government, with a Sunni sovereign maintaining a solid and self-perpetuating check on the tyranny of the majority. Syria’s situation is ominously similar, except with the bloodstained boot on the other foot; why not consider, if the opportunity comes, a Shia monarch as a replacement for the Shia Assad?

In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, opinion polls commissioned by the Pentagon showed no appetite among Iraqis for a republic. So why was one imposed on them? After the fall of Gaddafi in Libya, why was a blind eye turned to the royalist flags, a deaf ear to the royalist anthem? And in Afghanistan, why was pressure put on the old king, Zahir Shah, to rule himself out when just his quiet return to the country produced a level of support that looked likely to have him elected head of state?

A large part of the blame lies with America. The land of the free, which threw off the rule of King George, is fiercely democratic — even police chiefs and judges are elected. Let’s overlook the likely dynastic clash between a Clinton and a Bush in 2016, and agree that the US constitution looks great on paper. But is it really the best way to run a country? Well, it’s interesting that there are a dozen monarchies (including the UK and Barbados) judged to have less political and administrative corruption than America. In fact, there are only three republics in Transparency International’s top ten — and three kingdoms in the bottom 100. The great British Arabist Bernard Lewis, together with former head of the CIA James Woolsey, suggested creating a monarchy in Iraq in 2003. Noah Feldman, however, who was advising the US administration, dismissed the idea: ‘The United States is committed to democracy, and monarchy is not a good sign.’ Looking at the corruption league, however, one might be forgiven for thinking that monarchy is one very good sign of a properly functioning democracy.

The Scandinavian kingdoms that sit at the top of Transparency’s table are some of the most equal societies on earth. And in the Arab world, there’s scant evidence of the common people’s lot improving after the removal of crowned heads. Even the New Statesman has published an article on the happy successes of the British-sponsored monarchies in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Libya.

True, Farouk of Egypt slightly lets the side down, because although he was good-natured and friendly towards the Jewish and Christian minorities, he was too busy having fun to improve the life of the peasants. But that had little to do with America and Britain’s choosing to abandon him in favour of the socialist dictators, which in any case they came to regret bitterly. As Egypt banned political parties, went to war and expelled the Jews, it was obvious that the constitutional king had been by far the least injurious choice. Even the most inflexible moral relativist would be forced to the same conclusion today — in Egypt and right across the Middle East and Arab world.


The West is fully supportive of Jordan, Morocco and the other constitutional monarchies which survive, providing as they do stable but lonely beacons of hope in the region. (It even supports some repressive absolute monarchs.) But it’s expecting a lot of the modern western politician to entertain the sort of grand vision needed to see beyond the dull, and at times dangerous, default option of a one-size-fits-all republic. So is it all just too radical? Is the best that we can hope for that the Prince of Jordan becomes the president of Fifa?

Well, Montenegro has given its royal house an official, funded role, and many believe its neighbour Serbia will go further and have a referendum on reverting to monarchy. So if Europeans and Australians can vote for kings and queens, how can we justify withholding that right from others who live where kingship has the greatest potential to do good? We can’t afford to think of monarchies as just a legacy for the lucky few, tolerated because they’re somehow terribly good at maintaining peaceful prosperity. The time has come for us to think about creating new sovereigns to act as tools for troubled parts of the world — certainly they could do no worse than any other form of government that’s been tried across the Arab world since the 1950s.

It’s not going to be easy for the West to admit it’s been fundamentally wrong for the past half-century and more. But ignoring the evidence is difficult too, whether one looks to the past and the old kingdoms, or the present and Isis. In trying to stamp our own narrow and rigid idea of progress on other parts of the world, we have catastrophically failed them.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Show comments
  • Harryagain

    It needs dictators. The only way to govern people like these.
    Saddam Husssein was ideal, as was Gadaffi.
    As is Assad.

    • OutRAjious Curry

      No check out the footage from before the age of dictators mid 20th century ..

  • Kamran

    You know at some point it should be enough to just pick up your suitcase, build a wall around the whole region, and just say goodbye. You can take the Christians if you want. There’s really nothing you can do. You people already built a functioning civilization. Just go, there’s nothing you can do.

  • Joumana Gebara

    Bullshit article, bullshit proposal!

    • OOutRAjious Curry

      Why, you cannot argue with the footage pre republic … Check out Thatcher’s visit to Afghanistan and see the courteousness on both sides

    • Patrick Syder


  • Antonia Willis

    This is a subject which needs far more detailed consideration than the Spectator seems to have granted their author. The Islamic Hashemite concept of monarchy is potentially a life-saver; what if a Hashemite had been supported by the British as a replacement for Saddam? A ruler who is the descendant of the Prophet has far more traction over the extremist Wahhabis than an outsider. JJ Waldron deserves an audience who will listen properly & he has been too cautious or courteous, perhaps, to point out that the western support of the so-called Arab Spring, anti-monarchical as well as anti-hierarchical in feeling, is what unleashed an appalling episode of bloodshed upon the Middle East.

  • Gilbert White

    The Iraqi people played football with head of the crown prince in the fifties. They have always been into football and beheadings.

  • BillRees

    A constitutional monarchy is the best system of government yet invented.

    A hereditary head of state with no power is the best guarantee of freedom for the rest of us.

    A head of state who is an ideologue is a guarantee of tyranny.

    The article could have also cited other examples of the appalling consequences of monarchies being overthrown.

    • Yorkshireman

      No it isn’t. Even if you keep the constitutional head of state you can still have dictators and tyrants like Mussolini and Admiral Togo.

      We all have ideologies of one sort or another. Belief in freedom is an ideology.

      • OOutRAjious Curry

        A monarch can moderate the worst excesses of dictators, that’s the point

      • OutRAjious Curry

        In Cambodia I think most would agree King Sihanouk was a kinder ruler than Pol Pot whose influential wife was educated by the ‘best’ in the Sorbonne

  • rtj1211

    There is zero evidence that the queen and the Royal Family prevent corruption in the UK. Zero. There is voluminous evidence that if you define corruption as ‘wilfully wasting money on anachronistic, time-wasting tosh’ that Britain is as corrupt as they come. Our entire way of doing things is imbued with ridiculous rubbish that we should have rid ourselves of 150 years ago. Not the least of which should be that MPs should owe their oath of allegiance not to a Monarch who is subsidised by the people, but to the constituents they serve. The Queen and Royal Family don’t pay the MPs, the people do. So the allegiance should be to those who pay…….

    Now if we could show that we could evolve our democracy without being wedded to ancient monarchical irrelevances whilst maintaining the best aspects of a modern monarchy, then maybe these arguments would strengthen.

    • Mary Ann

      Getting rid of the Monarchy wouldn’t be very democratic, more than 70% of the population want to keep them, that’s more than twice as many people who voted for Cameron.

  • Yazen Al-Salman

    As an Iraqi, can’t agree more with the article. A monarchy supported by the west is best solution to stability in the area. Most Iraqis look back fondly to the monarchy apart from the leftist ideologues. A monarch is the best manifestation of what Tawfiq Al-Hakim called a “just dictator”.

  • Teacher

    ” The time has come for us to think about creating new sovereigns to act as tools for troubled parts of the world — certainly they could do no worse than any other form of government that’s been tried across the Arab world since the 1950s.” Isn’t our interference part of the problem?

    • Yorkshireman

      Remember the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico?

      • OutRAjious Curry

        Emperors are not being advocated here…

        • Yorkshireman

          What’s the real difference? And the point still applies. As the author of the ‘china doll’ remark above indicated, invented monarchies no longer work. New Zealand and Australia are on their way to becoming republics (alas). It’s not as if any of the Gulf State monarchies, absolute or no, represent a real improvement on the rest of the Arab world.

    • Oscar

      Of course it is – like focing a republic on Iraq. I agree in principle that the West shouldn’t be involved at all, but… I remember British troops in Iraq talking about how we had capital there because of our past involvement, and that centred around the monarchy – and see Yazen Al-Salman’s post on this page.

  • WarriorPrincess111111

    As I understand it – all the royal families World Wide are relate to the one family and there are no Muslims in that lineage!

    • Chubb Fuddler

      You understand wrong. There are dozens of Muslim royal families all over the world.

    • davidofkent

      Not at all. The days during La Belle Epoch when all the crowned heads of Europe were either the grandchildren of Queen Victoria or married to them is long gone. Royal Families are not needed.

  • davidofkent

    I must beg to differ. The trouble caused in the Middle East by hereditary monarchy or self-imposed monarchy has left us in this situation. Of course, the situation has been made worse by what came after, but the last thing they need is yet another ‘Royal Family’.

    • OOutRAjious Curry

      The trouble has been caused by ‘revolutions’. Just compare then and now.

  • carl jacobs

    A Monarch without power is a china doll waiting to be smashed on the floor. It would add nothing of substance to political stability. A king differs from a dictator only in that a king ostensibly rules by the mandate of heaven. A dictator rules by his own right hand. In practice, there isn’t much difference. Democracy means ISIS. And the West has lost both the will and the confidence to actually export (what remains of ) Western civilization.

    The Muslim world is pretty much screwed.

    • Allow me to show @ you a genuine way to earn a lot of extra money by finishing basic tasks from your house for few short hours a day — See more info by visiting >MY*&___(DISQUS)*%___ID)

    • OOutRAjious Curry

      No, look at the sixties and even eighties Afghanistan footage where you see wonderful relatively peaceful havens functioning well by today’s standards. So these countries can and did work.

  • tohellwithit

    *ahem* Saudi Arabia.

    • Oscar

      *ahem*, that’s an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional one.

    • OOutRAjious Curry

      The discussion is about democratic monarchy, that is restrained by a parliament and devoid of much actual power beyond persuasion think of Jordan it’s better for your peace of mind …


    There’s a monarch too many in Scotland…….. but almost certainly Scotland will become a republic within a decade of our inevitable independence.


  • Retired Nurse

    Can you explain what you feel would be missing from the UK if we got rid of the monarchy – no president, just an elected PM?
    If Charles takes over, we won’t have a constitutional monarchy for long (assuming we have ever had one )…

  • OutRAjious Curry

    It’s very difficult to assemble and arrange the evidence and arguments for an idea that is against the grain of present day thought… but broadly speaking a great article outlining an idea whose time has come, all other options having failed so disasterously to the pont of threatening world stability.

  • “Why the Middle East needs more kings”

    The Middle East has the number of kings that Marxists desire for the implementation of their long-range strategy…

    The following is a discovery I made in April regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…


    Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the ‘collapse’, yet ZERO celebrations after the ‘collapse’!

    For more on this discovery see my blog…



    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
    * The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…


    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the ‘alternative’ media. When determining whether the ‘former’ USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the ‘former’ USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the ‘freed’ Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of ‘Perestroika’ (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending ‘War on Terror’; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union ‘From the Atlantic to Vladivostok’; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West ‘lost’ China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

  • Patrick Syder

    JJ Waldron should be congratulated on an excllently researched, bold and thought provoking article. The fact that Jordan, Morocco and Oman have remained stable since having an established monarchy is evidence alone to the notion of why the Middle East needs more Kings.

    • Paul Montgomery

      The last king of Morocco was a monster.
      Oman has a history of deposing their sultan & only exists in its current form because of extensive military intervention by the UK.
      Jordan stable? If so, it was at the cost of a massive civil war in the late sixties.

    • RAj Curry

      The current monarch of Oman was reported last week as brokering peace in the region which is to be welcomed

  • global city

    Why can’t we just let the Middle East to get on with things themselves?

  • David West

    Why don’t we bring back colonialism while we are at it? That idea has merit. The Middle East seemed to be doing better under it. This idea “works” if you are not on the hit list of the monarch in charge. The global-get-along veneer that this article suggest comes at the expense at those crushed by a monarch’s boot.

    It did not “work” in Europe either. The Magna Carta was formed because the then current monarchy system of the UK was not “working” for the Lords under it. The monarchs of Europe (both constitutional and not) were not “working” for the religious minorities there from 1500’s-1700’s so those minorities left (cough Baptist burns cough) – many coming to what would latter be The United States of America.

    “The answer to defeating Islamic State in Iraq lies with ordinary Sunnis”

    True that, therefore they must do it without prodding from the west.

    Here in lies the problem. Sunni’s make up ISIS and the other kitalist groups in the region. Many were/are not integrated because they believe in a “higher calling”. The Islamic Djinn is out of the bottle and it aint going back. The only way for this idea to “succeed” is with lots and lots of killing. And isn’t that what this article is trying to stop?

    This region has not had an enlightenment or a reformation. Along time ago it codified the lifestyle (Sunnah) example of a 7th century warlord and this is the result. National stability is built from the ground up; if done from the top down it/they must be propped up or it/they will fall.

    “we have catastrophically failed them”

    White Man’s Burden much? Interventionism failed because its interventionism. This region will forever be messed up until it gets its act together. Even the most well meaning interference will still be interference. As such, it is better for the west that things be messed up without our involvement and for free.

    • Tellytubby

      I’ve argued something similar on occasion. You have to have a tradition of democracy and liberty. An alternative tradition (Islam) already has precedence in the area. The two are mutually exclusive and incompatible. The question then – and it very much is the famous “White Mans Burden” of Rhodes and Kipling, is should we try and make these places better for the good of their own people by direct intervention (I’d argue an attempt at more subtle “cultural” shift integration has failed because people realized you can pick and choose the bits of Western Culture you particularly like – see Arab Sheiks driving Lamborghini’s around whilst denying their own nations women the right to even drive – or the popularity of rap music and culture amongst the young men of the Arab world), or should we simply say “its not our problem” and in doing so condemn them to misery? Either way we’ll be hated for it (and already are).

    • RAj Curry

      While superficially the article may sound pro colonial, I see the removal of the class structure that functioned before ‘annexation’ as colonial damage. When the colonials left the point is there was no meritocracy or class structure in place and little to restrain a power grab by one dominant family … Goes for Africa too, take Zimbabwe why don’t you!?

  • Augustus

    Today the media focuses more and more on the person of a constitutional monarch, and on incidents in his or her life, which only makes for greater vulnerability of said monarch. That vulnerability often creates false views attributed to the monarch which may have nothing to do in reality with his/her private views. As for the Middle East needing more kings, it might be a good idea if they first enacted Western style constitutions in which separation between church and state was established by peaceful democratic means.

  • Dogsnob

    The Middle East has a King-in-waiting: Charles III. Bought and paid for.

    • justejudexultionis

      Charles is most definitely in the pocket of the Saudis. Windsor and Saud – a plague on both their houses!

  • john

    Liz and gang – off you go. Don’t forget the suntan oil and shades.

  • Tellytubby

    Too late. We already decided these bourgeoisie concepts are outdated and need to be replaced. We decided the people of these nations would feel affinity to a flag and a line drawn on a map in a Palace in Europe some hundred years ago. Creating these countries out of nothing – no shared historical context and culture beyond that of their ethnically based one..

    • john

      In Britain, corruption is institutionalised via titles and the monarchy. If you buy a Tory government, you get a nice title for your trouble.

  • Edward Studor

    What the middle-east needs is more dictators.

  • justejudexultionis

    What the Middle East needs is more Jesus Christ.

  • Sunshine Sux

    What the middle east needs, are also more evil white man plunderers. Muslims are clearly incapably of preserving ancient relics of past cultures, without eventually destroying them.
    They show us themselves, that they aren’t worthy of the history of humanity.

    Having said that, it seems Angela Merkel is up for it. She’s clearly gagging to become Queen of Baghdad, and to rule over her Empire of Eurabia.

  • Constitutional monarchs add value if they traditionally have good ties with the officer corps. Where this goes wrong- e.g. the last Kaiser whose overfamiliarity with the Corps, as evidenced by the Eulenberg-Moltke affair, removed the natural check on militarism, or the last King of Greece whose adventurism ultimately alienated the Colonels- Monarchs lose salience and may as well be gotten rid off for all the good they do.
    Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria are essentially gangster countries which can be held together by Super-gangsters with better fire-power and jet planes.
    Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy survived by luck and cunning. During the war between the moustache (Saddam) and the goatees (the Sheikhs) the King grew a stubble. Arafat also had a stubble but he tended to weep a lot probably because he was illegally occupying Gazza’s football strip and it probably ponged a bit. Anyway, that’s all I remember about the Nineties.

  • Mach

    Is the author drunk? Bashar al-Assad is a brutal minority-sect monarch and the Syrian people are revolting against him… and yet, according to the author, the solution is another minority-sect monarch to lord over the oppressed and politically-disenfranchised majority? By that logic, Assad’s genocide in Syria will just continue under a different figurehead.

    Self-governance is the fundamental principle of all modern democracies. The American colonies revolted against the British monarchy for the same reason. Monarchs can go stuff themselves down the waste bin of history. This author’s attempt to argue on behalf of medieval feudalism is backwards buffoonery.

    • Oscar

      Spectator, why oh why did you have to remove the comments when you re-launched today? The highest rated comment was from an Iraqi saying he couldn’t agree more with the article, but now we’re greeted by this Mach joker – the article seems to have gone right over his poor little head.

    • OutRAjious Curry

      Assad is a socialist, his party is the B’arth (?) Party, the same as Sadaam’s whose hero was Stalin. Assad behaviour, distortion of the truth and use of torture is entirely consistent with his stated ethos.
      He is not a King, Jordan has a King.

    • Patrick Syder

      What absolute twaddle!

  • Oscar

    Spectator, why oh why did you have to remove the comments when you re-launched the site? The highest rated comment was from an Iraqi saying he couldn’t agree more with the article, but now we’re greeted by this Mach joker – the article seems to have gone right over his poor little head.

  • The BBC Sucks BBCs

    Anyone who has read the Seven Pillars of Wisdom knows that Arabs believe in individuals, not institutions. They’d rather be ruled by a king than a parliament.

  • Highly concur with you, upon comment monarchies not inept political institutions mania to emulate American style cartels. Honor of whom? Ummah used propaganda by religious mockery of western principles whom stole wealth. Only certain few have clue of governmental policies Iran,Egypt,Turkey,
    Libya,Yemen,Nepal,Burma,Laos,Vietnam,Portugual,Italy and Afghanistan those tyrants whom gotten empowerment never. Contribute to success of diplomacy greed as corporations dictated economic policies sadly, if France restored monarchy 1873. Republics decide abolished in 1889 sadly, era of elected public officials is only façade Middle east is corrupt. Populous blame companies not greed elite stolen wealth nothing else change horrible situations. Monarchies need excellent diplomacy and military to retain power always be constitutional days of absolute is remembrance. Great article nice for return of royal in these regions ask Ben Ali and Gaddafi selfish oppressors of human rights saying democratic!King Faisel II of Iraq murdered 1958 coups Pakistan and Turkey whom backed revolutions for commodities CIA always. Corporate involve not diplomacy to benefit regional balance turmoil is there. Monarchies is question” Libya and Iraq what happen to restoration there awaiting return as Greece?