The Egyptian experience indicates that the sort of legal and judicial systems erected by the Gulf states should have been able to accommodate themselves to the autocratic political systems generally prevailing in the area. The judicial vision of legality in Egypt has only rarely been inconsistent with the desires of the country's rulers. This has made possible a fair degree of judicial independence as well as official observance of legality in the bulk of governmental affairs. On matters deemed too critical to leave to a strict legal framework, rulers have generally escaped constitutional and legal restrictions less by attacking than by avoiding the judicial structure. At certain periods when political pluralism, if not full-fledged democracy, has operated, the judiciary has worked for a more ambitious conception of liberal legality and enforced some significant constraints on executive action.

The experience of the Gulf does not contradict the lessons of the Egyptian experience, but it does suggest some refinements. In an effort to understand the political role played by Gulf legal and judicial systems, special attention will be given to Kuwait and Qatar. Kuwait, with its history of an assertive (and sometimes adversarial) parliament, viable associational life, and constitutional development, probably provides the most fertile ground in the Gulf for the emergence of liberal legality. Qatar, with a far less politicized society, organized only informally by family, and with constitutionally unrestricted executive authority, would seem to provide the least fertile ground. Thus, the comparative study of Kuwait and Qatar will reveal the extent of the pliability of the legal and judicial systems in the area and the likelihood of their serving as a base for the emergence of liberal legality.