ABSTRACT
The phenomenon of Arab republican leaders seeking to perpetuate their families’ hold on power through the process of dynastic presidential succession is one of the most significant developments in modern Arab political history. This phenomenon is not unique to the Arab world. In Cuba, for example, Fidel Castro was replaced by his brother Raul. Argentina has seen family-based transitions of presidential power involving the Perons and the Kirchners. The Egyptian columnist, Mohammed Abu Al-Hadid, went so far as to suggest that the practice existed in the United States as well, noting in 2000 that ‘one of the leading candidates in the presidential elections is the son of ex-president George Bush’.2 (He might well have also considered the examples of the Roosevelts, the Kennedys and the Clintons in this context.) Mustafa Al Feki suggests in the Egyptian journal, Al Ahram Weekly, that ‘Arab republics assume an Asian quality when it comes to succession’, noting similar experiences in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.3 What is unique about the Arab situation is that the phenomenon appears to be widespread throughout the republics of the region. The attraction of dynastic rule in these republics is being played out as a counterpoint to the Arab monarchies, where succession is overtly and constitutionally determined on the basis of family rule. Reflecting this irony, Arab commentators have developed the neologism jumlaka. ‘Jumlaka’ is a compression of the Arabic words ‘jumhuriya’, meaning ‘republic’, and ‘mamlaka’, meaning ‘monarchy’, to describe the development.
