undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdragonwriter1y ago0 comments

MBS is formally in charge from the perspective of anyone but the King since being appointed PM (a title normally held by the monarch), and arguably even before that as First Deputy Prime Minister.

His power is not (as far as anyone not privy to the private preferences of King Salman can say) extraconstitutional, since it flows directly from royal decree giving him the position and authority he holds, and Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy where any delegation of authority the King makes is, ipso facto, constitutional.

0 comments

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> since it flows directly from royal decree giving him the position and authority he holds

Do you have a source for the decree? (EDIT: Nvm, Salman delegated various affairs to MBS [1], as well as made him PM [2]. Salman remains the head of state.)

I'd still argue that MBS is not formally in charge. The President can delegate their authority to a rando, that doesn't make it lower-case constitutional, e.g. Edith Wilson [3]. (Granted, that was done without formal decree.)

Going back to the Greek analog, tyrants would usually gain some instrument from the formal leader technically legitimising their actions. But the formal leader wasn't the one deciding. The tyrant was.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1DA23M/

[2] https://amwaj.media/media-monitor/saudi-power-transition-con...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Wilson#Increased_role_af...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse