The question of who takes over next is crucial in any institution — whether a small company or a country. In the UK, the question of who is going to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister next year is a major, indeed divisive, issue; so too, in the US, the question of who will succeed George W. Bush as Republican candidate in the 2008 presidential elections. Saudi Arabia is thus not alone in facing questions about succession.
There is, however, no getting away from the fact that the Saudi succession has become a matter for discussion. The system established by King Abdul Aziz — of his sons succeeding each other — has worked well. But it raises questions about what happens when no more of those sons are available to rule.
The uncertainty could have been resolved by a statement from Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, naming an heir apparent to Crown Prince Sultan. That power was in the king’s hands. In deciding to institutionalize the process, setting up a commission to name the king and crown prince in future, King Abdullah has instead taken another major step along the road of constitutional change. Municipal elections, elections to chambers of commerce and industry, the establishment of an independent journalists’ association and an independent human rights commission and now the law on the succession are all part of Saudi Arabia’s political evolution. What makes this particular change all the more important is that in addition to taking the final decision about who rules in future out of the king’s hands and institutionalizing it, it brings transparency to the succession process.
The change is about more than simply naming a future king and crown prince. The new commission, will also have the right and responsibility, on the advice of a medical committee, to declare a king incapable of ruling or a crown prince unfit to succeed. In a country where the king rules rather than reigns — but rules on the basis of consensus and the advice of others — this is a development of major import. There is no place in Saudi Arabia for a political vacuum. The Kingdom needs rulers who are astute, wise and able to lead. Just as it is vital to be able to select the right prince in advance for the task, it is equally vital to be able to remove someone who is no longer able to perform that task.
Fortunately, during the final years of the late King Fahd when illness prevented him from performing his duties, the present king was a highly effective regent. But a regency should at best be a temporary solution. There has to be a system that allows the Kingdom to move on if a king is deemed permanently incapable. Such a precedent, in fact, already exists; there was a consensus in 1964 that King Saud was unable to rule. The all-important difference with the new system is that the process has been institutionalized and made transparent. This new law is but the latest development in Saudi Arabia’s evolution. That evolution, embracing further democratization and modernization, will continue. Of that there can be no doubt — just as there can be no doubt of King Abdullah’s commitment to it.
