Would you take wealth over democracy?

I would take both wealth and democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive. The rulers of the Middle East believe that they have ownership of the state and ownership of all the state's resources including the people. This mentality is being challenged.
The people of the UAE may not have much to complain about today; relative to their surroundings, Dubai is a prosperous, liberal, secure international hub, the locals are given priority treatment, they are given financial security, a variety of modern facilities and entertainment, and they have the freedom to live within their customs. As long as things are going well for the people, and as long as the people see themselves as better off than others in the region then they won't see a need for change.
The fate of these states is tied into the vision of the rulers. When the ambitions of the people exceed their rulers' vision, then they will find they have no voice to dissent with. The uprisings in the Arab world have given Dubai the luxury of hindsight before the event. They have the time and resources to take the necessary actions to give people a greater stake and political involvement in their future.

I absolutely agree with Ibrahim, why does it have to be either or?
The point about wealth is its distribution and the way opportunities are afforded equally to all a nation’s citizens.
From what I have heard, part of the trouble in Bahrain is due to inequality and perceived discrimination against a certain segment of the population, the Shia, although this has been hotly disputed by those against the protests.
Is the situation the same in the Emirates? Or is there indeed equality of opportunity for all?
If you compare the European social democratic model with the Anglo-Saxon one, i.e. France vs the US, many Americans would claim they are more democratic, because of “small government”, but the wealth gap is much greater than in France and I know which country I would prefer to live in. The UK is a classic example of this, ever since Thatcher in the 80s the pursuit of monetarist policies (incl. under “new” (= non) Labour) has decimated our welfare state and public institutions like education, and social inequality has been on a steady rise ever since.
China seems to have the worst of both worlds, no freedom of speech, no workers’ rights, no free healthcare, no say over land seizure, granted some have become rich in this headlong

oops, left the last bit of the sentecne out: granted some have become rich in this headlong neo-capitalist gold rush, but by no means the majority

"The one Emirati that did speak to me tried to explain why 'We have everything we need here. When I was married I was given $22,000 cash with free land and a house. Why do I need to fill my head with politics? I just live my life and be happy.'"

He does know that all of his nation's wealth is based on oil and exploited foreign workers, does he? It is not sustainable and if the people don't want to talk about politics their children will suffer from it.

Democracy is about much more than just having elections: it's about having a constitution (written or unwritten) with personal rights and freedoms. Even if the Sheikhs don't want elections they could at least give the people their freedoms, which, by the way, would certainly expand the economy and cut government spending because there will be less repression.

UAE have only about 18% of population presented by citizens (Emirati), 82% are so to say Gastarbeiters (some of them are permanent residents, but non-citizens anyway), Dubai -- even less (less than 17%), who wanna democracy there and for whom? For Pakistani, Indians & Filipinos?

This is hardly a fair question for a couple of reasons: First, great wealth exists; but pure democracies do not, and second, wealth is amassed under all types of governance. I would best like to live under governance in which my wealth is a product of my own talents and ambitions; but in which I am highly valued as a human being regardless of my wealth or ambition.
g

Re: Would you take wealth over democracy?

Wealth and democracy are two very different things. Democracy can facilitate wealth but the opposite is not necessarily true. Democracy can provide a foundation by which wealth can be created. Just because a society is wealthy does not mean it is democratic. A society can be both wealthy and democratic but only if the democracy comes first! I would rather have democracy and the ability to create wealth myself.

Re: I've heard the phrase “I don't talk politics, just economics” stated a few times.

It is very difficult to separate discussion of politics and economics. They are connected in unique ways. Political leaders have the power to use economics to address issues that they feel are relevant in ways they feel best serve the people. When leaders give those in a society money and material possession in exchange for an ignorance is bliss attitude that society is still a dictatorship.

Before this question can be answered, we have to agree about what democracy is. Many countries in Europe call themselves democracies, although the electorate have little chance to influence policies. A government - by the people, for the people, through the people - in most cases does not exist. At the very most, European voters have a choice between parties, which only look after their own interests. The example of Germany, where the government has debts amounting to 30.000 Euro for each citizen, shows how such pseudo-democracies dupe their own constituents. The leaders in Dubai are therefore probably do more for their country.

ModernJan: Dubai's economy is based on tourism, banking and other services that it provides to the citizens of less liberal neighbours, as well as to Europeans. Oil, whilst it is the main export of Abu Dhabi, does not exist on the same scale in its brother Emirate. It was the current sheikh's father who realised that oil was finite, and so developed alternatives whilst investing the relatively modest wealth in infrastructure. Whilst not a democracy, the ruler is chosen to build a consensus amongst the tribal chiefs, rather than eldest son, ensuring that the best available man for the job is chosen.