Abstract

This article discusses the relation between state and tribe in Saudi Arabia, but it does not ascribe to the prevailing conception that presupposes tribal ascendancy in the role of intermediary between state and society – at least not in this present phase of the evolution of the Saudi state. At the same time, it considers state–society relations – where the state is the prevailing form of political superstructure in the Arabian Peninsula – to be a narrow one due to the poverty of the relationship between rulers and ruled in the contemporary institutions: be they constitutional or legislative, political parties, civil society institutions, freedom of expression and the press, or the acceptance of difference of opinion – especially the opinion of ‘the other’. If we reject the supposition of tribal ascendency in the role of intermediary between society and state, this does not mean inter alia disavowal of the tribal character of the regime in Saudi Arabia. However, I distinguish between the tribal structure of the regime, as one thing, and the role of intermediary taken over by the tribe, as another. The question of the state–tribe relationship at the inception of the Saudi state, under King Abd al-Aziz bin Sa'ud, is examined in the context of his cooptation of tribes and the militant ideology of political Wahhabism first to achieve unification of the territories and subsequently to ensure a viable power base from which to counter other elements within the system. Abd al-Aziz both wielded the power of the tribe and kept it in check as with his massacre of the Ikhwan. Unlike the army, the National Guard – vital to the monarchy in quashing internal dissension – would remain up until the present day predicated on traditional tribal relations and norms, yet the tribe qua entity would experience a diminution in both role and influence with the increasing influence of the rentier economy, even if it would remain an essential part and counter-weight of the delicate and precarious balance that maintains the state through the playing off of state interests and policies against tribal allegiances and the conservatism and zealotry of religious fundamentalists.