Mohammed bin Salman has been a controversial figure not only in Western media, but more prominently in the international community and global corporations. Though his father King Salman has not yet officially abdicated, it is clear that his son has wielded control for years. The Prince’s blatant detachment from his father’s form of rule has had ground-breaking effects, which have exposed two faces of the moderniser: one of an innovative, proficient representative of reform and the other of an oppressive and potentially very catastrophic autocrat.
After his Uncle Mohammed bin Nayef was ousted in a midnight raid, Mohammed Bin Salman — known by his initials MBS — was announced as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia in 2017. This was an early sign of the Crown Prince’s authoritarian approach to power. Except, he exerted this violent and autocratic form of control via a sense of nuanced liberalism.
Coming to power at only 33 years old, his perspective was detached from authoritarian monarchism, and he chose to appeal to the youth of Saudi Arabia, which makes up roughly two-thirds of the population. His empowerment of youth would fuel his liberal authoritarian reform. The oxymoronic ideology ‘liberal authoritarianism’ is a window into the two faces of MBS. It began with his initiative of reforming conservative Islam; women were allowed to drive by September 2017, sporting events were held in the Kingdom, and cinemas were launched, all under the umbrella of his ‘2030 Vision’. Though in a Western perspective this may seem trivial, it is far more symbolic of the Prince’s contemporary outlook of freedom. This resulted in the West’s hasty celebration of his rule. Europe and the United States were quick to welcome him into the global political sphere, and it seemed the Crown Prince was transforming Saudi Arabia into a modernized nation.
At first, Salman visited London, Wall Street, Silicon Valley and met with Western leaders at various conferences. By the end of 2017, his foreign policy seemed cooperative and innovative, and was widely celebrated for his nuanced international relations. Moreover, he launched what is called the Future Investment Initiative, where annual forums to discuss world economy are hosted in the nation’s capital Riyadh- this even became a reflection of the World Economic Forum event, and was nick-named “Davos in the Desert”. This connoted collective investment, and a boost in global trade with Western countries. At the first event of this initiative, he hosted over 3500 to business leaders and scores of international members of the media to cover his forum. The impression of the young Prince was admirable and almost utopic.
A positive reflection of his government has been his diversification of Saudi Arabian economy too, and improvements to the already existent oil industry. A huge part of his governance has been reforming his economy. This has included launching huge tourism projects so that the nation is not dependent on a non-renewable resource. For instance, in July 2017, he launched the ‘Red Sea Project’-a property development which is customised for tourists and an exclusive destination amongst untouched lagoons. In addition, he instigated Neom, which is a planned cross-border city in north-western Saudi Arabia. This city is set to be a modernised landscape with smart city technology that will also act as a tourist destination, totally powered by renewable energy. Predicted to finish in 2025, the sovereign wealth fund is set to receive millions of dollars’ worth of revenue. These modern initiatives as well as his investment in Saudi Arabian world heritage UNESCO sites provide the image of a reformed economy, with a modern and stable foreseeable future.
All of these factors contributed to a climax where world leaders viewed MBS as a saviour to the nation, and a utopic commencement to liberalism in the Middle East. The collapse of this climax started catastrophically during the Ritz Carlton lockdown in November of 2017: a raid on over 100 Saudi business leaders and members of the royal family as part of an anticorruption initiative. The Crown Prince did not even attempt to deny his oppressive imprisonment, but instead credited his government for crushing corrupted figures that posed a threat. International response was confused stupefaction. World leaders were taken aback by the Prince’s sudden juxtaposition of an open foreign and economic policy , versus an oppressive capturing of opposition. He was, and still is, playing by his own political dimensions, and refuses to abide by outlines of global governance- those outlines are a box which he refuses to be constricted by. Saudi Arabia received global backlash from in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI)- now one quarter of what it was prior to MBS’s rule. But this crash in foreign relations and investment is not solely placed on the Ritz coup; his persistence in the Yemeni war which is now the largest humanitarian crisis has been criticised constantly as it reflects his craving of regional domination, no matter the expenses.
We then witnessed by October 2018, with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Mohammed bin Salman exposing his other face. The journalist was a member of roughly 50 critics of the Saudi regime. Walking into the country’s consulate in Istanbul, he was killed, and within the next few months a CIA investigation concluded the Crown Prince had had instructed the killing by five of his confidants. This brutality undermined the liberalism that was suggested at the beginning of his rule. David Rundell, a former US Diplomat, in his book commenting on Saudi Arabian policy, points out that Salman is “not trying to make Saudi Arabia more democratic, but…more stable, prosperous and religiously tolerant”. This contradiction of proposed liberalism suggests to the global public that his form of democracy is purely tokenistic, and his priority is domination. The way to achieve this is via the stability Rundell noted. World tensions were rising increasingly high with activities of the Crown Prince.
Economically, despite national hopes of a stable and diversified economy, the Crown Prince created another inconsistency in his liberal interpretation of Saudi Arabian economy. Just earlier this year, he abandoned efforts to support prices in the crude oil industry. A price war with Russia was short-lived after U.S. President Donald Trump leaned on both parties to collaborate and lift the oil market by cutting production.
While prices remain around $40 a barrel this is not enough for the budget of the Crown Prince. For example, Saudi produces oil for approximately $4 per barrel, and sells it at 10 times that price. Ideally, this would create billions of dollars in national income, but the Crown Prince has been spending an equivalent of about an $80 a barrel for his budget, spending double the amount that is coming in. According to the IMF, over the course of 5 years, Saudi Arabia has burnt through $650 billion in sovereign funds. We can see that what was originally an asset to the Crown Prince’s rule has evolved into a risky, and unreliable financial strategy. This instability is excluding both the overwhelming cost of the Yemeni war and Salman’s personal spending of family wealth: he bought what is called the world’s most extravagant home in France for $300 million, and is constantly buying properties globally for personal interest, instead of national. He has managed to undermine the assets he brought to the country with economic reform, by risking national stability.
The political sphere is still waiting to see whether King Salman abdicates and leaves the kingdom to his reformist son. The current Crown Prince’s rejection of international standards of liberalism and governance ,and his very independent, intolerant rule could provide the biggest threat to Middle Eastern security of the 21st century.
