Having a small population that has not endured the legacy of colonialism in the same way that other Arab nations have is a big factor. These Arab nations have fought for independence and now they're fighting for another form of self-determination. Such history wasn't as prevalent in the Gulf.

We have to admit that even if these so called Gulf "city-states" are enjoying impressive human development records, there are still similarities between them and these corrupt regimes in other Arab nations. Freedom of press is constantly being violated so are human rights. And let's not forget the recent Bahrain Financial Report that showed how much financial corruption is going around among ministries and government authorities.

The current Gulf governments have not said much with regards to what happened in Tunis, minus Qatar that respected the "will" of the people, so in a way we have to ask ourselves why? If your house is made out of glass .... we all know the rest ..

I think we should not try to overestimate the solidness of the current "western" but not quite "democratic" model in the Gulf, it is not a coincidence that Bahrain, being the first country in the Gulf to run out of oil, is the one that is going through a political havoc at the present time (yes, I do understand the demographics of Bahrain is also a factor), and that Kuwait with the most valid democratic experience in the Gulf is having confidence votes on the Prime Minister. Give people in the Gulf more political rights and we shall see a different story.

It's quite naive to imply that economic success is proof that monarchies are a good. When has economic success been the only indicator of the human condition or of political systems?

With all due respect Mr. Al-Qassemi, it sounds like your approach is based on textbook idealism of the world and not a practical ideological one that strives to define what's inherently right or wrong.

The Tunisian uprising which was obviously against the economic conditions, turned in its latter stage to unfold political demands. It had political revolutionary impact on the region. How far the peoples across the region would respond depends on how they perceive their political rights. In Gulf Monarchies the subsequent demands are likely to address corruption, the issue of accountability, maybe - but not neccessirly - demands for further representation accession. It is not only the lack of political awareness among large number of the populace, the matter has to do as well with the large number of beneficiaries from the current regimes. Most of the population are employed in the public sector and almost each has resided in a time or another to exceptional means to advance personal interests. People usually do not choose from what is right or wrong, they choose from available alternatives and the suitable selection happens many a time to be ideally wrong.

In countries like Egypt, Algeria, and Yemen, the public is highly excited to follow the Tunisian example based on the fact that the' constitutions of these states entitle the public to rise the level of their demands up to disqualifying the executive authority, Any economic or even political adventures by the regimes in this period would bring about its collapse. In Yemen, if the ruling party insist on passing the recent proposed constitutional amendments, it will definitely provoke not just the opposition parties but the street as well.Likewise, Egypt has to play down its succession plan. Lets remember that public demands - in the beginning - have to be reasonable and within the framework of state's legal and constitutional facts, a matter that leaves Gulf monarchies much better off and more politically safe.

This is probably a "fallacy?". I am from the Gulf, and I know that without our oil, we would be no better than these "terrible" republics (some of them truly are horrible, like Libya, some are just corrupt, like Egypt). Yes, let us pack it all in and let us all go back to the absolute tribal family monarchies/oligarchies. After all, the absolute tribal monarch and his many kinfolk know what is best for all of us.
As for the claim that "The monarchies of the Gulf have simply proved themselves more adept at channelling their natural resources, and developing the human capital of their populations, than their "republican" counterparts.....": Let us also forget that the UAE (example) has at least 80% of its people as foreign temporary expatriate workers, housemaids, street sweepers, and other laborers. Let us forget that these people can't really be allowed to leave because then who would rent all these apartments built by the potentates and who would buy all the goods the potentates import from China (mostly)? Now all these people ate not being developed in any way as human capital, but they are and will be always there 9with replacements of course)

I would like to hear the voice of Gulf women on this idea.

I know that in the UAE there are women milieus who have managed to find a voice within governance structures.

I don't believe this is the case in KSA

They represent an important part of the population.

The problem I see with seemingly intellectual arguments is the paucity of relevant facts. There is deep insecurity about one's own identity and refusal to step beyond failed Western ideologies, while blaming each other.

True, Gulf monarchies are less than perfect but let's look at so-called Western democracies, which today are nothing more than the tyranny of majorities. The recent economic crisis has heightened the rich-poor divide, and powerful interest groups like Tea Partiers are free to roam and kill (even noted public figures.) Or let's not forget the liberal French and other Europeans who treat their ex-colonial immigrants like dirt, even though they represent 3-8% or less of the total population but are accused of bigotry, violence and are condemned to a slave life in these ugly housing projects. No different than the Black experience in freedom-loving America, something that unfortunately is coming back with full force.

Nasser's Arab socialism, a confused doctrine borrowed from colonial masters, simply replaced colonial rule by domestic dictatorships based on force (exclusively military coups.) The article points out importantly that oil wealth isn't limited to the Gulf states. In fact Dubai, among the UAE states, and Bahrain, have almost no oil anyway.Yet they built themselves as a marvel of comparative tolerance and socio-economic progress, with the UAE alone supporting millions of expat workers (500-700% of the local populace) like a true global contributor unlike the rhetorical West. Gulf abuse of expats is far lower than, say in the US, where immigrants today can simply be jailed arbitrarily, or let to die in New York prisons without legal recourse !

Ironically many of the tired, old Arab socialists and revolutionaries seem happy with their life in the Gulf, while criticizing their generous hosts and demanding justice and freedom in their home nations as armchair warriors. Clearly they did not bring about the Tunisian uprising which caught all by surprise.

The fact remains that those bedouin sheikhs have done much better because they were always accessible by, and closer to, their people, believing in self-help and local values, than all those urban Arab intellectuals (and tormentors) who, by the way, are still clueless. Progress comes from visionary leadership that appeals to the people, not borrowed ideals and slogans. Change comes from within, and cannot happen without true sacrifice.

As a Kuwaiti, I must say that this article disregards a great deal of popular disaffection and government repression that, whilst not as severe as in the much poorer Arab republics, are still very significant. It is ironic that such an article would be written while the Kuwaiti government is in the midst of a political crisis in which a popular movement comprised of various political forces is seeking to oust the Prime Minister from power (See on this website: "Kuwait: Too Much Politics, or Not Enough?"). In fact, this movement has drawn a great deal of inspiration from the events in Tunisia, which have been followed closely in the country.

The main event that fueled this movement was the brutal beating of Kuwaiti citizens, including parliamentary deputies, by riot police during a rally. The crisis has been compounded by the revelation that a Kuwaiti citizen was tortured to death by police, allegedly for bootlegging. Furthermore, journalists and political activists are being tried and even jailed by the government, as in the case of journalist Mohammed al-Jassim. All this points to a large degree of popular discontent on political issues despite a high standard of living.

If one turns to Bahrain, the poorest of the Gulf states, one sees an even worse situation. It was only last September that the government launched a heavy handed crackdown on the opposition. Affected were not only political groups not recognized by the law but human rights groups and the media. This was only the latest episode in a long series of protests and clashes between disenfranchised segments of the population and the regime that began in the mid-nineties. It must not be forgotten that prior to the 2002 reforms, Bahrain was ruled as a repressive police state for three decades.

I'm not even going to go into the case of repression in Saudi Arabia, with which most people are familiar. Finally, I do not see how states such as Oman can gain credit for harboring proponents of democracy whilst being absolute monarchies themselves.

The commenters above have rightly pointed out the flaws in the claims made in the article. But the most obvious error in the evidence provided has been missed.

The author writes:
"Algeria, Libya,and Iraq are blessed with substantial energy reserves that far outstrip those of Bahrain, Dubai, and Oman. The monarchies of the Gulf have simply proved themselves more adept at channelling their natural resources, and developing the human capital of their populations, than their republican counterparts."

It is true that the mentioned republics have more hydrocarbon wealth than the named Gulf monarchies -- but they also have far greater populations.

The actual metric we should be looking at is hydrocarbon wealth per capita.

The combined population of Bahrain, Dubai and Oman is roughly 6 million in total.

The population of Algeria is 35 million, Iraq is 31 million and Libya is 6.5 million.

Given this, the claim that Gulf monarchies have channeled their resources demonstrably better than the "republics" falls flat. The monarchies just have more oil to go around.