Page 29 - The Origins of the United Arab Emirates_Neat

5
The Trucial States in 1919: Rule by Tradition
on .he same pattern: a square stone fort with towers around1 it
was the symbol or the ruler’s power; the houses of ^r and
leading men were made of stone, and the rest were of mats made
with date-leaf stalks. . Th
The system of government on the Coast was paternalistic. 1 he
ruler governed with absolute authority, but often consulted with
his majlis (assembly of notables) on matters of outstanding importance.
The position of the ruler was not always an easy one. I he rule
of primogeniture did not apply, and accession to power was often
accompanied by ruthless family competition, with murder and
bloodshed; fratricide and patricide were almost regular features
of the pattern. Once in power, a ruler had to placate above all
the members of his family, for the fact of their birth gave them
the right to occupy the seat of power, and any weakness of or
injustice by the ruler could unleash the enmity of his ambitious
relatives. He therefore not only included them in his majlis and
consulted them before taking any major decision, but also paid
them a regular salary out of his income as ruler; not to do so
would inevitably be to incur their wrath and would be very likely
to bring about his downfall.
The ruler had to remain accessible to all his people and hear
their petitions and complaints. He also had to prove his authority
by extending his rule over the inland tribes, and often paid them
large sums to ensure their loyalty. No government services or depart­
ments existed, no armies or police force, and communications were
at the most primitive level. The ruler also had to contend with
the terms of his shaykhdom’s various treaties with Britain, which
he had to sign at his accession to confirm their validity. He also
had to abide by all the formalities regarding the British authorities;
for example, when the Political Resident sailed to a shaykhdom
and had his standard raised, the ruler had to go on board to
pay his respects. Furthermore, the resident Indian traders were
regarded as British subjects and had to be treated with due care
and deference, although no extra-territorial jurisdiction existed for
them until 1946.6
Throughout the nineteenth century, and because of the successive
treaties, Britain reinforced the separate identity of the shaykhdoms
and helped the chiefs to establish themselves more securely. At
the same time the focus of the area’s internal affairs shifted from
the interior to the coast. This had much to do with the fact
that Britain was primarily interested in the security of the route
to India, and therefore recognised the authority of only those leaders
who had jurisdiction over the coast. There therefore developed
a marked difference between the settled society of the coastal area
and the more turbulent society of the nomadic peoples of the