Why haven't the citizens of high-income Arab countries had a democratic revolution?

[Hardkill]

Some of the highest income countries in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar are still very authoritarian countries. Yet, each of the countries' GDP per capita and infrastructure are greater than the vast majority of other countries around the world. In fact, UAE has even better infrastructure than the US does, its GDP per capita is very close to that of Japan's, and it has a strong military. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia's military is more powerful than the great majority of other militaries around the world, has better infrastructure than 1st world countries such as Ireland and Norway, and has a GDP per capita greater than Greece, which is a first world country. Qatar's GDP per capita is almost equal to that of USA, its infrastructure is on par with Israel's, and the country is a strategic ally of the USA. So, why haven't there been democratic revolutions within each of these countries yet?

[Porphyry Fedotov]

They may have high income and GDP but you can't have a democracy if your population at Red or Blue stage of development. You can give tribal people great infrastructure and high income - however they won't stop holding onto tribal values. Look closely for example how all this great infrastructure was built by the way. By slave force, that should tell you something about Gulf states' societies.

[Raze]

7 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Some of the highest income countries in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar are still very authoritarian countries. Yet, each of the countries' GDP per capita and infrastructure are greater than the vast majority of other countries around the world. In fact, UAE has even better infrastructure than the US does, its GDP per capita is very close to that of Japan's, and it has a strong military. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia's military is more powerful than the great majority of other militaries around the world, has better infrastructure than 1st world countries such as Ireland and Norway, and has a GDP per capita greater than Greece, which is a first world country. Qatar's GDP per capita is almost equal to that of USA, its infrastructure is on par with Israel's, and the country is a strategic ally of the USA. So, why haven't there been democratic revolutions within each of these countries yet?

1) they are authoritarian, such a revolution would mean a civil war, and the revolutionaries would lose. The government is wealthy and stronger and has the backing of western countries which want to keep stability to maintain oil prices.

2) more money does not necessarily mean desire for a democratic revolution, the public can be pacified If they are doing better economically, in China the CCP took over when China was declining and has become extremely strong due to mass economic improvements from the dark times under Mao.

[happyhappy]

18 minutes ago, Porphyry Fedotov said:

They may have high income and GDP but you can't have a democracy if your population at Red or Blue stage of development. You can give tribal people great infrastructure and high income - however they won't stop holding onto tribal values. Look closely for example how all this great infrastructure was built by the way. By slave force, that should tell you something about Gulf states' societies.

+1 true

[PurpleTree]

most of all they're scared to lose stability and wealth

and then they're religious, tribal, conservative

[Hardkill]

Yeah but guys, Leo said that once a nation has a high enough income and good enough infrastructure, then enough of its people will want to rebel for more equality and freedom. So, why haven’t a lot of people within Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE been fighting hard for more freedom and equal rights?

[Apparition of Jack]

42 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yeah but guys, Leo said that once a nation has a high enough income and good enough infrastructure, then enough of its people will want to rebel for more equality and freedom. So, why haven’t a lot of people within Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE been fighting hard for more freedom and equal rights?

Maybe they have? In fact, there often is protests in SA etc for more freedom of the press etc. 
The problem is is that it’s still too early for a majority of people to want these things. There are people in these countries alive today who were born when these societies were still tribal nomads. That mindset isn’t so easily shifted, even in societies that experience rapid economic growth. 
 

Basically you’re jumping the gun. Yes these societies have become wealthy but only in the span of about 30 years are so. That’s nowhere near long enough for a solid tradition of liberalism to emerge. Give it a few more decades, especially as the young people are exposed to these ideas more, and you’ll see more people wanting democracy, etc.

[vizual]

There is a massive income equality in Saudi Arabia. The rich are insanely rich, and the poor are will struggle more than in western countries. Also, higher education is generally only accesable for the rich.

[Carl-Richard]

They're too young.

[Hardkill]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

They're too young.

In what way are they too young?

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Hardkill said:

In what way are they too young?

Their wealth is a recent phenomena.

[Hardkill]

49 minutes ago, vizual said:

There is a massive income equality in Saudi Arabia. The rich are insanely rich, and the poor are will struggle more than in western countries. Also, higher education is generally only accesable for the rich.

That's why having a democracy in that country would help to eliminate a lot of the corruption and massive income equality there. It would also allow much more equality of education for everyone within the country. 

Besides, countries like India and Mongolia already has had some level of democracy and yet those nations have infrastructures, economies, and education rates that are very far inferior to that of Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Their wealth is a recent phenomena.

Oh I see. So, do you think that monarchy in those countries will soon collapse?

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Oh I see. So, do you think that monarchy in those countries will soon collapse?

It's hard to say. The West has had a very different developmental path to the UAE which is correlated with wealth but not fully explained by it. There have been extremely wealthy empires in the past, but they didn't suddenly develop democracy over the course of 50 years.

[Hardkill]

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's hard to say. The West has had a very different developmental path to the UAE which is correlated with wealth but not fully explained by it. There have been extremely wealthy empires in the past, but they didn't suddenly develop democracy over the course of 50 years.

I see. So do you think that countries like India and Mongolia have been able to have some kind of democracy for a while despite them being so underdeveloped?

[Space Lizard]

What makes you think everyone wants Western style democracy? Are you one of those people who think every society must evolve like the West has, and Western liberal democracy is the "end of history", a universal model for the whole world? I think the future is going to surprise and disappoint you if you think this way.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Space Lizard

[Hardkill]

19 minutes ago, Space Lizard said:

What makes you think everyone wants Western style democracy? Are you one of those people who think every society must evolve like the West has, and Western liberal democracy is the "end of history", a universal model for the whole world? I think the future is going to surprise and disappoint you if you think this way.

I didn't say that everyone in the world wants a democracy now, but everyone throughout the whole world needs to strive to reach that level of government sometime in the future, whether it be a western style democracy or eastern style democracy or whatever kind of liberal democracy.

 

[Gesundheit2]

There have been protests in the beginning of the Arab Spring in the Arabian Gulf, they involved several countries, but they were very small and localized, and they got cancelled very quickly.

Now, you might ask why weren't the protests big and massive as one might imagine they should be? And the answer is because most Arabs don't really value independence/individuality. We value tradition a lot more, we are very social, and we are very co-dependent. That's our center of gravity. It's due to religious domination for the most part, but there are other factors too. The ones who are more individualistic-minded tend to reach higher education and then move to western democracies for work, so they get filtered out automatically.

As well, Arabs do not own the technology, nor most of the minds that get to create, envision, and direct it. It's all imported from the west. There's no such thing as creativity or innovation here. You think and work your mind, and Arabs simply buy and apply the result of that, lol.

However, change is happening in the minds of the younger generations as they are more prone to being brainwashed by the western dogmas, propaganda and way of living, because they are becoming less trusting of the middle-eastern dogmas, since they're not as useful or practical as the western ones. Older people tend to hold on to their beliefs and traditions, while many youngsters are almost like hippies. This change is slower and weaker in richer countries, like in the Arabian Gulf, because there's no reason to doubt the current way, so it remains in control and on top of everything else.

If you ask me personally, I don't really see an advantage in being a first-world country citizen, except maybe for the technology and public services, but these things exist in the Arabian Gulf and in better quality, so why would an Arabian trade their stable, easy, luxurious life for a useless, egoic, and kind of illusory voting choice that they can get to practice once every half decade? It doesn't make any sense.

This is why the Arab Spring didn't and won't work in a nutshell.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Space Lizard]

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I didn't say that everyone in the world wants a democracy now, but everyone throughout the whole world needs to strive to reach that level of government sometime in the future, whether it be a western style democracy or eastern style democracy or whatever kind of liberal democracy.

Not everyone wants liberal democracy, but the whole world needs to strive for it, according to you. Why should they listen to you? What business is it of yours?

Edited January 6, 2022 by Space Lizard

[Hardkill]

16 minutes ago, Space Lizard said:

Not everyone wants liberal democracy, but the whole world needs to strive for it, according to you. Why should they listen to you? What business is it of yours?

Again, I didn't say that everyone in the world wants a liberal democracy NOW. Yes, it will take many decades if not a century or more for each 2nd and 3rd world country to achieve that but that is still supposed to be one of the ultimate goals of every country to achieve. Even Leo said that.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Hardkill

[Space Lizard]

LOL @ "supposed to be" and "Leo said that". Is that in some bible somewhere? Is Leo your prophet? I'm asking why this should be "one of the ultimate goals of every country"? What gives you the authority to assert this?