After the inheritance of Bashar Al Assad to the "thrown" of his father Hafez in the Arab republic of Syria (the constitution had to be changed overnight to allow someone not yet 35 years old to become president), after the yet unclear attempt by President Hosni Mubarak to have his son Jamal succeed him in ruling Egypt, after the Yemeni president’s appointment of his son to head the army and a similar powerful position given to the son of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, one wonders what is so great about republics in the Arab world. Contrast that with the three countries today which are witnessing the most serious and genuine democratization in the region -- the Kingdoms of Jordan, Bahrain and Morocco -- it becomes a no-brainer to think such undemocratic thoughts.

While rulers surely hold ultimate authority by wielding the highest of executive powers, such powers are not absolute even in monarchies. A tradition of respect for multiplicity of thought recognizes that legislative process and an independent judiciary coupled with free media are all necessary for democratization, accountability and a role for the people in power sharing.

In a perfect world one would never dream of accepting the rule of a monarch who with his signature can absolve parliament, suspend political life and control all three branches of governance (as well as the fourth estate -- the media). No such perfect world exists in the Arab region. For now, those looking to live in an open and relatively free society have no choice but to look for the nearest monarchy, hope that the monarch has some democratic values and hope that one day the monarchy can become a constitutional one as in Britain or Denmark, with a ceremonial king or queen entrusted with providing order and unity within the nation.