Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

The robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East, Assignments of History of Middle East

The robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East

Typology: Assignments

2019/2020

Uploaded on 05/12/2020

adelia_khairutdinova
adelia_khairutdinova 🇹🇷

5 documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1.Among Eva Bellin's reasons, which one is the most important reason for the robustness of
authoritarianism in the Middle East? Why?
According to Eva Bellins the Middle East and North Africa lack the prerequisites of
democratization. The lack of a strong civil society, a market-driven economy, adequate
income and literacy levels, democratic neighbors, and democratic culture explains the
region's failure to democratize. Cumulative failure to achieve the prerequisites of democracy
clearly undermines the consolidation of democracy. Democratic transition can be carried out
successfully only when the state's coercive apparatus lacks the will or capacity to crush it.
Where that coercive apparatus remains intact and opposed to political reform,democratic
transition will not occur.
The solution to the puzzle of Middle Eastern And North African exceptionalism lies less in
absent prerequisites of democratization and more in present condition that foster robus
tauthoritarianisms,specifically robust coercive apparatus in these states. The will and capacity
of the state's coercive apparatus to suppress democratic initiative have extinguished the
possibility of transition.Herein lies the region's true exceptionalism.
Thus, authoritarianism has proven exceptionally robust in the Middle East and North Africa
because the coercive apparatus in many states has been exceptionally able and willing to
crush reform initiatives from below. No single variable, whether poor fiscal health, declining
international support, strong institutionalization,or high levels of popular mobilization,is
either necessary or sufficient condition of retreat from power by the coercive apparatus. But
these four variables have been important cross-regionally in cases of retreat. Their
performance suggests reasons why authoritarian regimes exceptionally robust there.
First, with regard to fiscal health, although many states in the Middle East and North Africa
have economic difficulties of one sort or another,few, save perhaps the Sudan,face economic
collapse of sub-Saharan Proportions. Most, moreover,enjoy sufficient revenue to sustain
exceedingly robust expenditure on their security apparatuses. In fact, these expenditures are
among the highest in the world. Finally, the percentage of population engaged in various
branches of the security apparatus is high by world standard.
With regard to international support,the region is exceptional for the unique position it enjoys
in the international arena. Authoritarian Regimes in Saudi Arabia,Egypt, Jordan,Tunisia,and
Algeria have received western support, at times in very generous proportions because of the
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download The robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East and more Assignments History of Middle East in PDF only on Docsity!

1.Among Eva Bellin's reasons, which one is the most important reason for the robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East? Why?

According to Eva Bellins the Middle East and North Africa lack the prerequisites of democratization. The lack of a strong civil society, a market-driven economy, adequate income and literacy levels, democratic neighbors, and democratic culture explains the region's failure to democratize. Cumulative failure to achieve the prerequisites of democracy clearly undermines the consolidation of democracy. Democratic transition can be carried out successfully only when the state's coercive apparatus lacks the will or capacity to crush it. Where that coercive apparatus remains intact and opposed to political reform,democratic transition will not occur. The solution to the puzzle of Middle Eastern And North African exceptionalism lies less in absent prerequisites of democratization and more in present condition that foster robus tauthoritarianisms,specifically robust coercive apparatus in these states. The will and capacity of the state's coercive apparatus to suppress democratic initiative have extinguished the possibility of transition.Herein lies the region's true exceptionalism. Thus, authoritarianism has proven exceptionally robust in the Middle East and North Africa because the coercive apparatus in many states has been exceptionally able and willing to crush reform initiatives from below. No single variable, whether poor fiscal health, declining international support, strong institutionalization,or high levels of popular mobilization,is either necessary or sufficient condition of retreat from power by the coercive apparatus. But these four variables have been important cross-regionally in cases of retreat. Their performance suggests reasons why authoritarian regimes exceptionally robust there. First, with regard to fiscal health, although many states in the Middle East and North Africa have economic difficulties of one sort or another,few, save perhaps the Sudan,face economic collapse of sub-Saharan Proportions. Most, moreover,enjoy sufficient revenue to sustain exceedingly robust expenditure on their security apparatuses. In fact, these expenditures are among the highest in the world. Finally, the percentage of population engaged in various branches of the security apparatus is high by world standard. With regard to international support,the region is exceptional for the unique position it enjoys in the international arena. Authoritarian Regimes in Saudi Arabia,Egypt, Jordan,Tunisia,and Algeria have received western support, at times in very generous proportions because of the

belief (perhaps mistaken) among western policymakers that these regimes would be most likely to deliver on western security concerns by assuring regular oil and gas supplies to the West and containing the Islamist threat. With regard to the third variable, patrimonialism, in most Middle Eastern and North African countries the coercive apparatus,like the regimes themselves, is governed by patrimonial logic. Although not universal many of the regional powerhouses, such as Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, as well as lesser forces such as Jordan and Morocco, have coercive establishments shot through with patrimonialism. Personalism pervades staffing decisions. Of course, not all security establishments are equally corrupted. Moreover, patrimonialism should not be confused with professional incompetence; many of these apparatuses are professionally well-trained and equipped to handle the most modern military materiel. But patrimonialism spells a strong personal linkage between the coercive apparatus and the regime it serves; it makes for the coercive apparatus personal identification with the regime and the regime's longevity and thus fosters resistance to political reform. The prevalence of patrimonialism is by no means exceptional to this region. But the low level of institutionalization in the region's coercive apparatus constitutes one more factor explaining the robust will of so many to thwart political reform. The low level of popular mobilization for political reform is not limited to the region, and to some extent it is a consequence of some of the absent prerequisites of democracy like poverty and low levels of literacy. However,there are additional factors that reduce popularenthusias for democratic reform. First, experiments in political liberalization are historically identified with colonial domination rather than self-determination. Second,there is no prolonged prior experience with democracy that might have created the institutional foundations for popular mobilization (mass-based parties,labor unions). The exceptionalism of the Middle East and North Africa lies not so much in absent prerequisites of democracy as in present conditions that foster robust authoritarianism and especially a robust and politically tenacious coercive apparatus.Together,these factors reinforce the coercive apparatus capacity and prevent democratic reform.the experience of the Middle East and North Africa draws attention to the of structural most the character of

Adelia Khairutdinova