Sheik Zayed of UAE is dead

[C Elegans]

Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the president and ruler of United Arab Emirates, died on the 2nd of November. He will be succeeded by his eldest son, Sheik Kalifa, crown prince of Abu Dhabi. It is said that Sheik Kalifa is a competent administrator, but lack his father's charisma.

Sheik Zayed will be mourned and missed in UAE for a long time. He was extremly popular among the population, genuinly loved and admired, much in the same manner as King Hussein of Jordan. He was also a same type of leader, a modern "enlightened despot".

For those of you who are not familar with the UAE, here is a brief history of this young country:

The United Arab Emirated was formed in 1971 when the emirates became independant from the UK. Sheik Zayed was elected president (by officials, UAE is not democratic) and was re-elected every five years until his recent death. Sheik Zayed's history reflects the history of the region. He was born around 1918, and as a young man he lived with the bedouins in the desert. He started his political career in the 1940's as ruler of a small oasis town, where he ruled the different tribes with consensus, consultation and model learning (he statuated examples for others to follow). When the oil export started, he became the leader of Abu Dhabi, and with the oil money he started a society-building project including infrastructure, education, social wellfare programs, health care and housing. The UAE was transformed from a tribal bedouin society to a finacial centre in 20 years.

Sheikh Zayed is viewed as the founding father of UAE, and he was known for his diplomacy and generosity. His modernisation of sociocultural norms as well as technical level, included religious tolerence and equality for women. This made the UAE a very liberal country, something that is surprising to many Westernes who haven't visited the country.

I guess very few people here will be interested in this, but I think it's a real shame that one of the few really, really good politicians in this world has passed away, and it's very sad for the UAE population who really adored him.

[CM]

One thing I admire Zayed for is the fact that he never forced religion on the people or society. Just to point out the UAE is as conservative and fundementalist in religion as is Saudi Arabia. Shops close for Prayers and stuff but it is not a requirement. What i have seen however when i have visited the UAE is that when prayers are called usually 70% of the staff disappears for prayers and then comes back, then the other 30% leave. Of course you still have women walking around in Hijabs and Burqa's but again it is not forced. It is very much a societal issue. He did not enforce religion by law but then again he didnt attempt to eliminate it from society. He just left it alone and it has worked.

Just to point an inaccuracy (sorry CE) but the women in the UAE enjoy the same political and social right as they do in Iran, Syria or Lebanon, two of which are very fundementalist religious societies.

The man was brilliant. He directed the creation of Dubia, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah. Economically he created the only region in the Middle East with little or no oil to a powerhouse that countries in the regions envy and desire. If only there were more like him.

[Rookierookie]

Quote:

president

Quote:

succeeded by his eldest son

Now I know that a democratic election is not the most important thing for a good government... but are presidents usually succeeded by their eldest sons?

[Paranitis]

One of Saddam's sons would have probably inherited Saddam's leadership, and Saddam was the president of Iraq, heh.

Sucks having world leaders die though..I am guessing that Yasir Arafat will be gone within a week as well.

[CM]

Democracy is not all that its cracked up to be. After the US was a democractic country till the the 1960s. Look at ASEAN. All those countries are economic powerhouses and why? Dictatorships mixed with sound economic planning. Japan, South Korea, China, Tai-wan, Malaysia all have dictatorial governments. Look at Pakistan's history we have had a great economic and social period under military dictatorships. Look at India the great bastion of democracy. ONE FAMILY ruled the country for 40 years. Not one party but one family.

Democracy is great once you have a roof over your head and food to eat. Till then nobody gives a damn.

[moltovir]

...but you forgot to tell that all those countries (except Japan maybe) have a huge poverty rating, lots of people have underpayed work or no work at all, and social insurance is either very expensive or unknown. Which is not the case in West-European, democratic countries.

[CM]

Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan (it should be) are OECD members. They are developed countries. Malaysia and Thailand are next on the list to follow in 10 years. All dictatorships. The UAE Is more advanced in many respects than some European nations. It had a dictatorship.

[C Elegans]

@CM: I do not at all agree with you that UAE is comparable to Saudi, on the contrary they are far from fundamentalist. Wearing the abaya and going to the mosque is is volontarily, it is hardly so in Saudi. Alcohol is allowed in UAE. Internet is heavily censored in Saudi, whereas in UAE, at least half of the population have access to unrestriced internet. Sharia law is practised and executed in Saudi, whereas in UAE they judge according to Sharia law but the punishment is converted to fines.

Regarding women's role, UAE is far from gender equal but still much more equal than any other country in the region. Women can work in all fields, and they have a female finance minister. Compare this to Saudi where women are still confined to a few fields, for instance they cannot work in economics or business. Women in Saudi also have movement restrictions.
Check this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3613888.stm

@Rookierookie: The Emirates is not a democracy, it is ruled by a few ruling families of which Zayed's family is the most powerful. As I posted above, Sheik Zayed was an "enlightened despot", ie an enlightened dictator. He was an extremely good dictator. I'd much rather have a dictator like him than a democratically elected leaders like Blair, Bush, Chirac or the goverment in Sweden where I live.

@Moltovir: South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwain or the Emirates have a "huge poverty rating"? That is not correct. Social networks exist to a much lower degree than in Western Europe, except for the Emirates where the social network is better than in most European countres (save Norway).

Poor however, they are not. Hong Kong and Japan have higher GNP per capita than Germany or the UK. Taiwan, Singapore and the Emirates have about the same as Sweden. South Korea somewhat lower.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/...untry_desc.php

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM The UAE Is more advanced in many respects than some European nations. It had a dictatorship.

The UAE is still the only country on earth I've been to where there is no poverty. Nobody is homeless, nobody is starving, living standard range from ok to extremly rich.

[moltovir]

@C Elegans: perhaps we have a different view of the word 'poverty'. You mean that the land itself is rich, I mean that the people are poor. As in most countries with dictatorial governments, the most money and land is in possession of very few people. In Thailand 11% of the people lives below the poverty line, more then double of Belgium (3,8%). In Belgium (and probably in Sweden too) unemployed people get enough money a month to live, disease insurance, a decent pension wage, and a major percentage of medicine cost is payed by the government, which is as far as I know not the case in Thailand, Malaysia or South Korea

[C Elegans]

@Moltovir: Aha, I see. I would call the kind of poverty you refer too, "unequal distribution of wealth", "class segregated society" or something similar. By your defintion, the US would also be a poor country since about 9% of the population are not able to get enough food to meet basic nutritional needs, and lack of insurances lead to many families not being able to get medical treatment for their children even for life-threatning conditions. (I am not saying that your definition of poverty is incorrect, I am just trying to nail down the differences in our respective definition.)

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moltovir @C Elegans: perhaps we have a different view of the word 'poverty'. You mean that the land itself is rich, I mean that the people are poor.

But if nobody is homeless or starving, the people aren't poor, are they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CElegans By your defintion, the US would also be a poor country since about 9% of the population are not able to get enough food to meet basic nutritional needs, and lack of insurances lead to many families not being able to get medical treatment for their children even for life-threatning conditions. (I am not saying that your definition of poverty is incorrect, I am just trying to nail down the differences in our respective definition.)

I was under the impression that means there is poverty in the US, not that the US as a whole is a poor nation. I think that's what moltovir meant...

[Silur]

Taiwan was more stable before they started fooling around with democracy. Now they have scandals that make Clintons cigarr pretty insignificant (though Bush still wins on most accounts). For instance, before the election last year the president faked an assassination attempt on himself. It couldn't be proved either way, so nothing came of it.

I think Bahrain is also a place where noone is really poor. Everything is provided by the king/sheik/whatever and most people are very happy with the state of things. The Swedish king, however, got in trouble over expressing positive sentiments of the country because it's a dictatorship. And before you ask, the Swedish king has less power than your average swedish person (he can vote but he is forbidden to speak in political matters) and is basically confined to his gilded prison of royalty.