


Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East
Typology: Assignments
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
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