Abstract
Pressure is mounting on the ruling families in the Gulf to engage with more participatory political processes, and—so far—the pressure has been diverted to the constitutional provisions regulating such processes. Regardless of the many attempts to deny it, Gulf constitutions are the linchpin of legitimacy for the ruling families. The authoritarian structure of existing constitutions, however, has elements of rigidity that hinder any accommodation of the growing demands, severely straining the system and jeopardizing its resilience.
Calls for broader and more effective participation in the political decision-making are not new to the Gulf, but have significantly escalated since 2011. Bahrain has certainly witnessed the most dramatic events, including the recourse to foreign troops to quell the insurgence, but major protests affected Kuwait and Oman as well, and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia. Only Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have managed to prevent major protests—so far.
The institutional responses of the ruling families to the unrest included a government reshuffle and constitutional amendments in Oman, early general elections in Kuwait, constitutional amendments in Bahrain, the call for the first general elections in Qatar and the revival of municipal elections in Saudi Arabia. Responses that, however, channeled dissent into the existing authoritarian framework, fueling discontent.