Washington Report, October 4, 1982, Page 7
Book Review
The House of Saud: The Rise and Rule of the Most Powerful Dynasty
in the Arab World
By David Holden and Richard Johns, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, 1982 569 pp. $19.95
Reviewed by John A. Shaw
Bernard Shaw once commented that three people collaborating
on a book was as desirable as three people collaborating on a baby.
The House of Saud suffers not only from the unevenness inherent
in such a joint effort—aside from the contributions by Holden
and Johns, there is a chapter by John Buchan—but from the
seeming current wisdom that bulk is equivalent to thought and synthesis
so far as Saudi Arabia is concerned. That the result seems incompletely
digested, however, does not detract from the story's fascination.
Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the Ibn Saud of Western legend, was heir to
a political and religious tradition which sprang from the central
plateau of the Arabian peninsula. A giant of a man, he literally
hacked his way to the control and stabilization of central Arabia
and then expanded that control east, west and south in what, to
the Saudis, was a sort of manifest destiny. Holden's chapters, which
carry the story through the Second World War, weave Arabian peninsular
politics into the larger tapestry of Western interests in the area.
The way in which Abdul Aziz moved from being a minor British pawn
to his successive recognition by Britain as Sultan of the Nejd and
then King of Saudi Arabia, is a reflection both of his canniness
and of the increasing importance of Arabia to the world in the course
of his life. His rise, moreover, was concomitant with the decline
of British power worldwide and especially in the Gulf.
Palestine, Oil, Modernization
The problems which currently occupy center stage in the world community
provided the challenges which have occupied the successive rulers
of the House of Saud for the past half century: Palestine, oil,
and modernization. The centrality of the Palestine issue to Saudi
rulers from its origin, and U.S. disregard of the Saudi position,
led to the certainty of increasing tension between the two countries,
especially when set against the special relationship which had developed
as a result of oil and the revenues it generated.
Indeed those oil revenues themselves have provided the central
challenge to successive Saudi rulers because they set in motion
the modernizing process which challenged everything that seemed
fundamental to the monarchy. Wahabi fundamentalism and great wealth
seem unlikely companions, and there was no dearth of critics both
within the Kingdom and across the Red Sea to point up the shortcomings
of an antiquated Bedouin monarchy awash in money and self-indulgence.
If this was the view of the era of Abdul Aziz's successor, King
Saud, from both a Western and Arab nationalist point of view, the
comparable criticism within the royal family itself and within the
religious and tribal groupings which undergird the monarchy provided
for a regeneration of the monarchy by the family and King Faisal.
The consultative process which is at the heart of Saudi government
is under-appreciated by Western observers. In fact, the process
allows for the critical give and take among the major political
figures and interests in the Kingdom which alone assures the consensus
which is essential for progress. King Faisal had the experience
and respect to effectively utilize the consultative process to accelerate
the modernization of Saudi Arabia—a technique which Abdul
Aziz himself had begun. Faisal was the perfect bridge between the
old and the new because he was steeped in the traditional Bedouin
world and appreciated the requirements of the modern world. Johns
seems to have lost hope for the judicious melding of past and present
at his passing. While he appreciates the foundations which allowed
for the stable transfer of authority to King Khalid (and more recently
in the same manner to King Fahd) he apparently sees the engine of
modernization and the corrupting influences which follow it as inescapably
bringing to the fore the forces of "reaction".
Accommodating Dissent
There can be no argument that a tension exists between the traditional
mode of life in Arabia and the emerging tone and quality of life
there. The attack on the Haram Mosque in Mecca was indeed the "return
of the Ikhwan"—the puritanical and fundamentalist brotherhood
whose simple zeal both helped to found the Kingdom and then had
to be curbed. But that effort was more of an echo from the past
than a harbinger of the future. The royal family itself partakes
of all the tribal divisions in Saudi Arabia and is the root of the
religious tradition. The consultative process which the King and
his most senior advisors are perpetually engaged in should insure
that ongoing policy initiatives are in keeping with their traditions.
The vitality of that process and the fact that constant adjustments
are being made to accommodate dissent and disagreement within the
family and the Kingdom at large, the relatively small and homogenous
population, and their immense oil revenues together should insure
that the reports of the imminent demise of the House of Saud are
greatly exaggerated. Johns' effort never really comes to terms with
the regenerative process that is the mirror image of seeming drift.
John A. Shaw is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington. |