The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East - Essay Example

The Robustness itarianism in the Middle East Bellin wrote an article describing the causes that have prevented the Middle East and North African countries from accepting reforms. Bellin observed that the countries in these regions were not making advances towards democratization. Therefore, she presents a detailed causal analysis of reasons that could be making this region lag behind in democratization. In her analysis, she points out to obvious hindrances of democracy and highlights other factors unique to these regions that account for the persistent authoritarianism in the regions. She begins with an analysis of the common explanations but then goes on to highlight the exceptional factors that hinder democracy. She cites examples and elaborates them to support her claims. In addition, she makes comparisons with the situation in other regions to make her claims more valid. She uses the exceptionalism comparative perspective to identify the real causes. Bellin starts with a citation of the Freedom House report on the level of democracy in different regions. While the number of free countries is doubling in other regions, the freedom house report indicated stagnation in the Middle East and North African region. She mentions the statistics as an anecdote to awaken the attention of her readers. Obviously, this report implies that something is definitely wrong in these countries. The author makes a supported claim that most countries in the region have failed to take the challenge of embarking on a journey towards democracy. She then mentions the obvious reasons that may be the cause of the stagnation. According to her, the obvious reasons do not offer valid explanations as to why the region does not make efforts towards democratization. These reasons include the existence of weak civil societies in the region that lack the impetus and capacity to advocate for democracy. In addition, labor unions in the region lack notable activity that can foster democracy. She also highlights the fact that the non-profit organizations in the region lack the appropriate grounding for them to participate in activities that can initiate a democratic transition. In elaboration, she mentions that since association life in the region is weak, the society lacks the capacity to exert pressure on the state to adopt a democratic setting. In addition, the state drives all economic projects of the countries through rental sources of income (Diamond 97-98). The state determines the level of employment as well as the rate of economic growth in the region. The people lack the autonomy to create new economic ventures for themselves. Therefore, as long as they depend so much on the state, they cannot make demands from it. Increased poverty, illiteracy, and inequality limit the people from demanding democracy. As argued, these factors scare the few elite in society. The masses cannot commit to fighting for democracy as they have other pressing issues on the side. Next, she explains the claim that the Middle East and North Africa lack close proximity to democratic republics. Usually, analysts argue that close proximity to a democratic country offers demonstration effect. Some analysts claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Islam is prevalent in the Middle Eastern and North African countries and may be one of the reasons making it difficult for the people to embrace democracy. Bellin argues that the above circumstances are not preserves for the Middle Eastern and North African regions. The same factors exist in other regions that have shown remarkable progress towards democracy. She compares the situation in these regions with the realities in other regions. Her illustration of the progress in the sub-Saharan region despite the weak societies outweighs the claim that presence of a weak civil society hinders the Middle East society and North African countries from advancing towards democracy. On a different point, a high economic command from the state is not a factor that these countries cannot overcome on their race towards democracy because countries in Europe did triumph over the same issues in the 1990s. She also illustrates that countries like Botswana, India, and Mauritius managed to overcome poverty, remoteness from democratic nations and inequality in their race towards democracy. In addition, she illustrates how other nations have triumphed over world cultures known to be incompatible with democracy such as Catholicism and Confucianism. She then explores the contribution of democratic prerequisites in hindering the Middle East and North African countries in making them reluctant to initiate the process of democratization (Diamond 95). A wide comparison from regions implies that it is difficult to enumerate the standard prerequisites of democracy. However, this does not nullify the contribution of prerequisites because it has proved difficult for some countries to achieve democracy without putting into consideration the required conditions. The Middle East and North Africa have probably failed to consider the prerequisites but this is not enough reason why they have made no efforts to initiate democratization. The author’s main concern is to find reasons why the regions of interest have not taken any steps in creating an initiative towards democracy. The author finds the lack of initiatives towards democracy an exceptional factor in the region. According to her, if they had tried and failed, the picture would be different. She then embarks on an analysis from the studies of revolution to try to establish why the region remains reluctant. According to her analysis, the region has observed several prerequisites favorable for democracy. However, she mentions that the coercive states have managed to find ways to repress any initiative towards democracy (Diamond 99). Some of these have included the emergence of various civil societies, liberalization of the economies and favorable interpretations of Islam. The coercive states ensure that they repress any civil society and punish owners of the private sectors who seek to drive political motives. In addition, a few of the societal elites in the region hinder efforts of making Islam compatible with democracy. The author then examines the structure and capacity of the state using Theda Skocpol’s description. According to Skocpol, change and revolution do not come easily in any society. Skocpol highlights the undeniable regression of revolution by coercive states. According to Skocpol, the strength of a coercive state can resist any efforts of change to the regime. The capacity of a state to be coercive lies in the military. Using this idea, the author of the impulsive article relates the effect of the states capacity and will to hinder any progress towards democracy. The author declares her conviction that the coercive states of the Middle East and North African regions are to blame for the lack of democracy progress and not lack of favorable conditions. The author then analyses the state power and will to repress any efforts geared towards democracy. A coercive state must posses both the capacity and will to remain in authoritarianism (Beissinger 74). There is a distinction between the two and the author asserts that they do not always occur together. In some states, there is as combination of both. Democracy remains a dream for states that have both of these because the state does everything in its power to suppress transition to a more democratic regime. In addition, she mentions the prevailing condition in the region that contributes greatly to the resistance to democracy. She calls this the conflation of the military and the regime. Basing her analysis on 2004 comparative politics, she analyzes factors that keep a coercive apparatus of a regime in place. In most of the states, the coercive apparatus has made a demonstration of its ability to hinder any form of reforms towards democracy (Diamond 99). For the apparatus to retain its coercion, it must have a continuous fiscal health. A state must have a source of finance to pay and service the military (Beissinger 74). In the case of Middle East and North Africa, the author argues that majority of states receive rental income from the sale of oil and financial aid and the states use that to keep the military going (Diamond 98). In addition, a regime applying any form of coercion must have an international backing. The Middle East and North Africa has enjoyed undying support from the international community for various reasons as the author explains. She quotes several examples to emphasize the importance of international support. When America withdrew its support from Latin America, authoritarianism in those countries disintegrated. The same happened for African countries when the cold war reached an end because that cut short military supplies. Since the Middle East and North African countries still enjoy support from great powers of the east and west, they can maintain their coercive apparatus. These countries earn such backing in several ways as the author explains. In the first place, the Islamic threat that they possess earns them support. In addition, presence of oil in these countries invites allies. The author brings out another factor that affects the longevity of a coercive regime, and this is institutionalization. If the security system has undergone institutionalization, then it can easily give room for political reforms. Institutionalization allows the apparatus to pursue career-oriented goals and missions. She highlights that this concept implies that the security system is under governance of the rule but portrays predictability. She explains that contrary to this, some states have maintained patrimonialism (Diamond 99). In this case, they employ strategies to bring down the opposition and create a loyal base. According to Holmes, usually such states achieve this through favoritism, patronage discretion, and personalization. Contrary to patrimonialism, institutionalized security systems have the confidence to face a democratic future preserving their integrity. Such confident officers pave way for democracy as the author elaborates. In the Middle East, patrimonial logic is common in most of the states except for three. Officers appointed to office are either friends or relatives to the heads of state and this ensures a close working relationship and coercion of the security. However, the author brings the readers to the attention that patrimonial logic exists in other regions especially Africa and Asia (McFaul and Stoner-Weiss 69-70). The author also highlights that coercive states ensure that they maintain low popular mobilization. High mobilization would mean that the masses could riot, protest against the coercion of the state, and force the state to hand power to the people. However, the coercive states have learned how to reduce the repression cost and survive even when protests arise (Diamond 99). Middle East can be categorized to have this case and some parts of North African region. Countries in this region rely on the foreign patronage to maintain the coercive state. The author illustrates the effect of mobilization in pushing for democracy as it happened in Iran and led to some reforms. The author highlights the effect of existence of potential threat in the region. Specifically, the arab-israeli conflict contributes to the longevity of coercion (Diamond 101). Many of the factors contributing to the lack of initiatives towards democracy are not unique to the region as the author mentions. However, they are so prevalent that they have made the region exceptional in the sense that it has not made any effort to initiate democracy. The author is convinced that the maintenance of the coercive apparatus is the leading factor hindering democracy in the region. Other factors contribute but other countries have triumphed over them and made steps towards democracy. The region has some unique ways of keeping the security coercive over time. The only hope for the region would be institutionalizing the security in order to reduce the coercion. The author has effectively brought out the key cause of the lack of democratic transition in Middle East and North African countries. She has succeeded in highlighting the fundamental cause among the many potential explanations. She has exposed the exceptional factors in the region. Use of examples and illustrations give the reader a conviction that her claims are logical and true. She uses information about the region and compares that with data from other regions to build a basis of her arguments effectively. Work Cited Beissinger, Mark. An interrelated wave. Journal of Democracy, 20(1) 74-77, 2009. Diamond, Larry. Why are there no arab democracies? Journal of Democracy, 21(1) 93-104, 2010. Holmes, Stephen. Fragments of a defunct state. London Review of Books, 34(1) 23-25, 2012. McFaul, Michael and Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn. The Myth of the Authoritarian model. Foreign Affairs, 87(1) 72-84, 2008. Read More