Since the middle of the 20th Century, Arab contribution to world political thought has been quite limited. Two " contributions " stand out, however. The first is the standard 99.99 % acceptance rate for the ruling heads of state of Arab countries in referendums where there is only one candidate. The second, which is the topic of the essay, is the " republican monarchy". This simply means that when a president of an Arab republic dies , his son takes the reigns of power in the tradition of the monarchy. In this essay, I will try to examine this trend and analyze its significance and consequences.
             First of all it would be unfair to say that only in Arab countries are there republican dynasties. In India there are the Ghandis while in the US there are the Kennedys and, perhaps soon, the Bushes. The public likes a name they know and trust and there is a certain mystique about dynasties and long family traditions that win the public imagination. Bush Jr. might still have run for president if his last name was Smith, for example, but his name certainly helped open some doors. However, no matter what his name is, he will have to fight a great political battle to gain the trust and confidence of the people if he is to win the presidency. On the other hand, Bashar El-Assad, the first of the Arab republican princes to actually assume power, is President of Syria simply because he is the son of the late President Assad. No matter what he would have said or did, the Syrian Parliament would still have changed the constitution in 20 minutes and he would have been " electe!
             Other princes in the Arab World are expected to sit on the throne of the republics in the same way. In Egypt, Gamal Mubarak is said to be in the process of being groomed to succeed his father and the same can be said for the sons of the presidents of Libya and Iraq. Gamal goes with his father on state visits (
             ...