ABSTRACT
In any political system the nature of leadership and governance is a matter of fundamental, long-term and wide-reaching implications. In the Arab world, where authoritarian governance is the norm, this issue is seen by many as being at the centre of a crisis of legitimacy. Arab regimes are regarded as narrowly based and dependant on force and the threat of force to maintain their control over their societies. Their willingness to use violence against their own citizens has earned them the reputation of being world leaders in the ‘industry of repression’.2 An important related issue is that, perhaps more explicitly than in Western systems, Arab regimes tend to be the agents of specific interests, be they the family, the tribe, the military or a particular religious sect, rather than attempting to represent some broader view of the national interest. Indeed, the concept of the state as an institution has, to some extent, failed to take root in the region. Instead, tribal, confessional and even regional loyalties assume greater importance to Arabs than their state, especially when the state is under pressure. According to Palmer:
Family loyalties continue to compete with loyalty to the state and it is probably safe to assume that most residents of the Middle East place the interests of the extended family far above the interests of the state.3
