OCR Specification focus:
‘Monarchies including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and the Wahhabi Movement, influenced governance and society.’
Monarchies in Jordan and Saudi Arabia shaped Middle Eastern governance and identity. Their political structures, religious ideologies, and historical evolution deeply influenced regional society and state-building.
Origins and Nature of Middle Eastern Monarchies
The Emergence of Modern Monarchies
The twentieth century witnessed the formation of monarchical systems in the Middle East, many of which emerged from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and European mandates. These monarchies often combined traditional tribal structures with modern state institutions, relying heavily on dynastic legitimacy, religious authority, and alliances with Great Powers.
Monarchies were typically hereditary, passing power through family lines.
Legitimacy often derived from tribal leadership, Islamic authority, or historical lineage.
Relationships with Britain and France influenced the establishment and survival of several monarchies, particularly in Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula.
Jordan: Hashemite Monarchy and State-Building
Origins and Establishment
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established under British supervision following the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Britain supported Emir Abdullah, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, as ruler of Transjordan in 1921.
Transjordan became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1946, with Abdullah as king, marking full independence.
Hashemite Dynasty: A royal family claiming descent from the Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatimah and son-in-law Ali, historically rulers of Mecca and influential in Arab politics.
Monarchy and Governance
Jordan’s political system combined tribal loyalty, Islamic tradition, and modern governance:
The monarchy maintained authority through patronage networks and tribal alliances.
A constitutional monarchy was established, with a parliament, but the king retained significant executive power.
King Hussein (r. 1952–1999) strengthened the monarchy’s authority, balancing internal pressures and regional threats.
Role in Regional Politics
Jordan’s monarchy navigated complex regional dynamics:
During the Arab–Israeli conflict, Jordan played a key role, including its controversial annexation of the West Bank in 1950.
The monarchy survived challenges such as the Black September crisis of 1970, when the government clashed with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).
Jordan pursued a pro-Western foreign policy, cultivating close ties with Britain and the United States.
Saudi Arabia: Monarchy and Wahhabi Foundations
Formation of the Saudi State
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia emerged under the leadership of Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, who unified the Arabian Peninsula through military conquest and tribal alliances between 1902 and 1932.
A labelled historical map tracing the territorial evolution of the Third Saudi State, including Najd, Hasa, Hejaz, and adjoining regions absorbed up to 1932. It clarifies the sequence and geography of unification central to the monarchy’s legitimacy. The map includes neighbouring polities and dates of annexation, which are additional but relevant contextual details. Source
The kingdom was formally proclaimed in 1932.
Saudi legitimacy was rooted in its alliance with Wahhabism, a puritanical form of Sunni Islam.
Wahhabism: An Islamic reform movement founded in the 18th century by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, advocating a return to the practices of the early Muslim community and strict monotheism.
The Wahhabi–Saudi Alliance
The foundation of the Saudi state rested on the religious–political partnership between the Al Saud dynasty and the Wahhabi clerical establishment:
A historic map of the First Saudi State (Emirate of Diriyah) highlighting Diriyah and the state’s maximum extent (18th–early 19th centuries). It helps students connect Wahhabism’s formative nexus with Al Saud power before modern unification. Phase colours and date ranges are included, adding valuable chronological context within the syllabus focus. Source
Wahhabi doctrine provided religious legitimacy for the monarchy, portraying its rule as upholding true Islam.
In return, the monarchy enforced and promoted Wahhabi principles in law, education, and society.
Governance and Authority
Saudi Arabia’s monarchy consolidated power through:
Centralising authority under the king and royal family.
Implementing Sharia (Islamic law) as the legal framework.
Controlling the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, enhancing religious legitimacy and influence in the wider Islamic world.
The discovery of oil in the 1930s transformed Saudi Arabia’s political and economic landscape:
Oil revenues funded state infrastructure, social welfare, and military capabilities.
The state–society relationship became defined by a social contract: citizens received welfare benefits in return for political loyalty and limited participation.
The Wahhabi Movement: Ideology and Influence
Origins and Principles
The Wahhabi movement emerged in the mid-18th century in central Arabia, seeking to purify Islam from practices seen as bid‘a (innovation) and shirk (idolatry).
Advocated strict tawhid (monotheism).
Opposed Sufi practices, shrine veneration, and foreign influences.
Encouraged the implementation of Sharia as the basis of governance.
Wahhabism became deeply intertwined with Saudi state identity and policy, shaping domestic law and foreign policy.
Regional and Global Impact
Wahhabism influenced the broader Islamic world:
Saudi wealth funded religious education, mosques, and missionary activity globally, spreading Wahhabi interpretations of Islam.
Its doctrines shaped Islamist movements, some of which became politically or militarily active beyond Saudi borders.
Critics accused Wahhabism of fostering intolerance and contributing to sectarianism, particularly against Shi‘a Muslims.
Comparative Analysis: Jordan and Saudi Arabia
Political Structures
Jordan developed a constitutional monarchy, balancing royal authority with parliamentary institutions and limited political participation.
Saudi Arabia maintained an absolute monarchy, where the king and royal family hold supreme power, legitimised by religious authority.
Sources of Legitimacy
Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy derived legitimacy from its Prophetic lineage, leadership in the Arab Revolt, and Western support.
Saudi legitimacy relied on the Wahhabi–Saudi alliance, control of Islam’s holiest sites, and stewardship of vast oil resources.
Social and Religious Dimensions
Jordan’s monarchy managed a diverse society, including large Palestinian populations, using patronage and political co-optation.
Saudi Arabia implemented religious conservatism and social control, with Wahhabi clerics exerting influence over education, law, and daily life.
Impact on Governance and Society
Monarchies in Jordan and Saudi Arabia shaped the political and social landscapes of the Middle East through their distinctive structures, ideologies, and state-building strategies:
They maintained political stability and dynastic continuity amid regional upheavals.
They mediated tradition and modernity, blending Islamic legitimacy with state institutions.
They influenced regional politics through alliances, leadership roles in Arab and Islamic affairs, and control over strategic resources and religious sites.
The Wahhabi movement, integral to Saudi Arabia’s monarchy, extended its influence far beyond the kingdom, shaping religious discourse, governance models, and political ideologies across the Middle East and beyond.
FAQ
British involvement was crucial in creating and sustaining the Hashemite monarchy. Following the First World War, Britain installed Emir Abdullah as ruler of Transjordan in 1921 to reward Hashemite support against the Ottomans and to stabilise the region under a pro-British government.
British advisers shaped Jordan’s administrative, military, and political systems, and financial subsidies underpinned its economy. Britain also supported Jordan’s military, including forming the Arab Legion under British officers, which became vital for internal security and regional conflicts. This support ensured the monarchy’s survival and consolidated Abdullah’s authority in a newly created state.
Tribal loyalty was a cornerstone of both monarchies’ stability and legitimacy.
In Jordan, the Hashemites secured support by incorporating tribal leaders into governance structures, distributing land, positions, and influence through patronage networks. This helped prevent uprisings and ensured broad-based loyalty.
In Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud built alliances through bay‘ah (oaths of allegiance) with powerful tribes, often sealed by strategic marriages or land grants. These alliances enabled the unification of the peninsula and remained vital to maintaining order and legitimacy, particularly in rural and peripheral regions.
Wahhabism offered a unifying ideological foundation for a fragmented Arabian Peninsula. Its emphasis on strict tawhid (monotheism) and rejection of innovations created a cohesive religious framework around which Ibn Saud could rally support.
It legitimised military expansion as a form of jihad to purify Islam, justifying conquest and state formation.
Wahhabi scholars also provided a moral and legal justification for Al Saud rule, portraying it as divinely sanctioned. This alliance allowed the monarchy to blend religious authority with political power, strengthening both governance and state legitimacy.
Oil transformed Saudi Arabia from a tribal kingdom into a wealthy petrostate, shifting power dynamics significantly.
The monarchy centralised control over oil revenues, strengthening its authority over tribes and regions.
A new bureaucratic and technocratic elite emerged, dependent on royal patronage rather than tribal influence.
Vast social spending on infrastructure, education, and welfare created a social contract where citizens accepted limited political participation in return for economic benefits.
Oil wealth also enhanced Saudi Arabia’s international influence, enabling it to fund religious outreach and assert leadership in the Islamic world, reinforcing both the monarchy’s legitimacy and Wahhabi ideology.
The Hashemite monarchy faced repeated internal and external pressures but survived by adapting and consolidating power.
The influx of Palestinian refugees after 1948 and 1967 transformed Jordan’s demographics and politics, creating tension with East Bank Jordanians.
Black September (1970) marked a major crisis when the monarchy fought the PLO to maintain control over the state.
Economic dependency on foreign aid and shifting regional alliances required careful diplomatic balancing.
Despite these challenges, the monarchy’s strategic use of tribal loyalty, security forces, and diplomacy allowed it to maintain stability and legitimacy throughout the century.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Identify two ways in which Wahhabism influenced the governance of Saudi Arabia.
Mark Scheme (2 marks total):
1 mark for each valid point identified (maximum 2).
Accept any two of the following:Provided religious legitimacy to the Al Saud monarchy.
Led to the implementation of Sharia law as the legal framework.
Influenced education and legal systems with strict religious principles
Strengthened the monarchy’s authority by portraying it as upholding true Islam.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan maintained political stability from its establishment to the late 20th century.
Mark Scheme (6 marks total):
Award marks for relevant, accurate, and developed explanations. Indicative content includes:
Use of tribal alliances and patronage networks to build loyalty (1–2 marks).
Establishment of a constitutional monarchy, allowing limited parliamentary participation while retaining royal power (1–2 marks).
Role of King Hussein in consolidating authority and navigating regional conflicts such as the Arab–Israeli wars and Black September (1–2 marks).
Maintenance of pro-Western foreign policy, ensuring external support and internal stability (1–2 marks).
Level descriptors:
5–6 marks: Detailed, well-explained answer with multiple relevant factors and clear links to political stability.
3–4 marks: Some valid explanation with limited detail or coverage.
1–2 marks: Basic points identified with little or no explanation.
0 marks: No relevant content.
