Recently there have been various attempts by people in my intellectual sphere to rehabilitate the Great Man theory of history. The reasons behind this rehabilitation are twofold: intellectually to lay bare the poverty of the thinking of those who lazily ascribe all events to the inevitability of historical processes, and practically to shake people on the right out of their fatalistic doomer convictions and force them to reckon with the fact that perhaps they could change history if they only chose to try.
I think part of it, frankly, is the meltdown of Dubai's competitors. In the middle of the 20th century, the Middle Eastern countries to bet on would have seemed to be Lebanon and Iraq, which had advantages Dubai could only dream of.
Absolutely amazing article. I remember discussing many of these themes when we met up in person.
Interesting when you presented the pictures of the Arab cities side by side. None of these look as impressive as Dubai. Dubai's architecture looks slick and unique, not just a typical 'international style' but combining modernist and distinctly Islamic styles to create a beautiful cityscape, where each building is in harmony with the other. Many of the other cities you showed me looked more akin to the modern London skyline; no consistency to the layout, misshapen building all over the place.
I've often compared Dubai to Yarvin's NRx vision, indeed it is almost 'patchwork'. However, I think Yarvin's model, with the cities being joint-stock companies rather than privately owned (like the UAE's Emirs) is better because it provides a degree of accountability. In Yarvin's system, the Sheik would have almost absolute power, but it would not be unlimited, and if there is consistently bad performance, they could be removed and replaced. Such brutal treatment of their family members would also not be tolerated.
It has been astounding to see Saudi Arabia's modernisation as well. At the time Bin Salman announced his reforms, many believed they would be cosmetic and thin. But he has genuinely turned what was once 'ISIS in One Country' into a source of moderation, diplomacy and a distinctly Arab form of modernity in the region. Ironically, western hostility to Saudi Arabia has grown since the reforms; just like it grew hostile to Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the 1970s when he stopped Persia being a western puppet. There are lots of parallels between MBS and Pahlavi, and I hope the former doesn't make the same mistakes the latter did (listening to the West's crocodile tears about 'human rights' and doing nothing to stop a rebellion by fundamentalists.)
As for your words about 'Great Men of History', it is true in both directions. Iran could easily have had the kind of future Dubai had, even been the 'Japan of the Islamic World' due to its size, large population, and oil reserves able to be used as a springboard, but the 'Great Man of History' Ruhollah Khomeini prevented that from ever happening, and despite the loathing of their populace, so far the Mullahs have successfully used their repressive apparatus to stay in power. This is why it is so important to build a good constitutional regime and prevent repressive elite castes of militiamen, having an armed populace, because if one group has the weapons, there is no check on tyranny.
If you went back to 2005 though I also think the differences would be more stark between Dubai and its imitators.
Also agree re Yarvin I think Dubai is the best example of neocameralism in the world today.
Saudi's development is very impressive. I think overall it will be a great success, but I do think there are signs of hubris and white elephants that you didn't see with Dubai, 'The Line' especially.
And re 'great men' yes, others have pointed this out and it's a good point, that the Dubai Sheikhs used their intelligence and drive in a particular direction (aligning with US backed globalisation) which happened to be the right horse to bet on, at least economically, in the last half century. But you can equally have great men with a different vision that is less successful just due to the wind not blowing that way, or because they prioritise other things e.g. religious values over wealth.
I think part of it, frankly, is the meltdown of Dubai's competitors. In the middle of the 20th century, the Middle Eastern countries to bet on would have seemed to be Lebanon and Iraq, which had advantages Dubai could only dream of.
Yes you can also see Kuwait and Bahrain having maintained their positions were it not for political strife.
Absolutely amazing article. I remember discussing many of these themes when we met up in person.
Interesting when you presented the pictures of the Arab cities side by side. None of these look as impressive as Dubai. Dubai's architecture looks slick and unique, not just a typical 'international style' but combining modernist and distinctly Islamic styles to create a beautiful cityscape, where each building is in harmony with the other. Many of the other cities you showed me looked more akin to the modern London skyline; no consistency to the layout, misshapen building all over the place.
I've often compared Dubai to Yarvin's NRx vision, indeed it is almost 'patchwork'. However, I think Yarvin's model, with the cities being joint-stock companies rather than privately owned (like the UAE's Emirs) is better because it provides a degree of accountability. In Yarvin's system, the Sheik would have almost absolute power, but it would not be unlimited, and if there is consistently bad performance, they could be removed and replaced. Such brutal treatment of their family members would also not be tolerated.
It has been astounding to see Saudi Arabia's modernisation as well. At the time Bin Salman announced his reforms, many believed they would be cosmetic and thin. But he has genuinely turned what was once 'ISIS in One Country' into a source of moderation, diplomacy and a distinctly Arab form of modernity in the region. Ironically, western hostility to Saudi Arabia has grown since the reforms; just like it grew hostile to Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the 1970s when he stopped Persia being a western puppet. There are lots of parallels between MBS and Pahlavi, and I hope the former doesn't make the same mistakes the latter did (listening to the West's crocodile tears about 'human rights' and doing nothing to stop a rebellion by fundamentalists.)
As for your words about 'Great Men of History', it is true in both directions. Iran could easily have had the kind of future Dubai had, even been the 'Japan of the Islamic World' due to its size, large population, and oil reserves able to be used as a springboard, but the 'Great Man of History' Ruhollah Khomeini prevented that from ever happening, and despite the loathing of their populace, so far the Mullahs have successfully used their repressive apparatus to stay in power. This is why it is so important to build a good constitutional regime and prevent repressive elite castes of militiamen, having an armed populace, because if one group has the weapons, there is no check on tyranny.
Anyway, enough of my rambling. Fantastic article.
Thanks! I think Dubai undoubtedly has the best skyline but I also think Doha especially is a good example of Arabofuturism. I think it's really the Burj Khalifa that makes Dubai's skyline, without that it's not so different from the others. I do love this one of Riyadh in the desert context https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Riyadh_Skyline_showing_the_King_Abdullah_Financial_District_%28KAFD%29_and_the_famous_Kingdom_Tower_.jpg/800px-Riyadh_Skyline_showing_the_King_Abdullah_Financial_District_%28KAFD%29_and_the_famous_Kingdom_Tower_.jpg.
If you went back to 2005 though I also think the differences would be more stark between Dubai and its imitators.
Also agree re Yarvin I think Dubai is the best example of neocameralism in the world today.
Saudi's development is very impressive. I think overall it will be a great success, but I do think there are signs of hubris and white elephants that you didn't see with Dubai, 'The Line' especially.
And re 'great men' yes, others have pointed this out and it's a good point, that the Dubai Sheikhs used their intelligence and drive in a particular direction (aligning with US backed globalisation) which happened to be the right horse to bet on, at least economically, in the last half century. But you can equally have great men with a different vision that is less successful just due to the wind not blowing that way, or because they prioritise other things e.g. religious values over wealth.