How Do Authoritarianism and Sultanism Differ, Which Type of Authoritarianism Defines Arab Monarchies - Essay Example

?How do itarianism and sultanism differ, and which type itarianism defines Arab monarchies? Introduction Reviewing historical records makes it evident that non-democratic governmental orders have been in existence right from the beginning of the human civilisation. Even in the modern era, a significant percentage of the world’s population is still ruled by non-democratic authoritative bodies (Brooker, 2009). This is because ‘non-democratic government, whether by elders, chiefs, monarchs, aristocrats, empires, military regimes or one-party states, has been the norm for most of human history’ (Brooker, 2009: 1). The whole of the twentieth century has gained importance in history for creating more authoritative regimes that include Hitler’s rule of Germany, Stalin’s regime in the then USSR, Pol Pot’s reign in Cambodia and Mao’s brutal rule in China, than for democratic transformations. It is easy to relate non-democratic regimes as historical and political anomalies in the twenty-first century, especially after the collapse of the communist USSR during the late 1980s and the dramatic revolution in the Middle East (also known as the Arab Spring of 2011); however, it would be overly optimistic to view non-democratic authoritative bodies as outdated. Such perspectives fail to take into account the possibilities that forcibly removing one authoritarian leader may simply lead to another one taking his/her place, or it may also lead to foreign invasion, or even a failed state. A study of literature showed that the breakdown of the USSR and the subsequent collapse of communism did not bring democracy to countries such as Uzbekistan, neither does the ousting of authoritative heads in Yemen, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt guarantee stable democracies in all these states. In this context, Way claimed that when the collapse of the USSR and the Arab Spring of 2011 are compared, it reveals the likelihood of the survival of authoritative regimes, ‘and that those [Arab] countries which do witness authoritarian collapse will be less likely to democratize than their European counterparts were’ (2011: 17). It is noteworthy that the Middle East has singularly remained steadfast in maintaining a non-democratic authoritative regime in power in the form of monarchy or sultanism. Sultanism is a type of authoritarian regime, where a ruler is present in all aspects of governance. Sultanism is a term derived from the Arabic word sultan, which denotes an absolute monarch in Muslim societies. In the context of authoritative regimes, as seen in the Middle East and North Africa, Belling said: While the number of electoral democracies [in Middle East and North Africa] has nearly doubled since 1972, the number in this region has registered an absolute decline. Today, only two out of twenty-one countries qualify as electoral democracies, down from three observed in 1972. Stagnation is also evident in the guarantee of political rights and civil liberties. While the number of countries designated free by Freedom House has doubled in the Americas and in the Asia-Pacific region, increased tenfold in Africa, and risen exponentially in Central and East Europe over the past thirty years, there has been no overall improvement in the Middle East and North Africa. Aggregate scores in 2002 differ little from 1972. Fifteen countries are designated not free, five partly free, and only one free. While a few countries, notably Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain, and Yemen, have registered noteworthy progress toward political liberalization in the past decade, overall the vast majority of countries has failed to catch the wave of democratization that has swept nearly every other part of the world (2004: 139). This essay will make a study of the available literature to find out the differences between authoritarianism and sultanism regimes, and the type of authoritarianism that defines Arab monarchies. Discussion Non-democratic regime in the general sense relates to the rule by a political body or a government in a manner that does not follow the rules of democracy, however differentiating such regimes (non-democratic ones) is not easy, considering the transient nature of political systems and contextual specification of each case. In order to study the non-democratic regimes, one must take into consideration the types that are significantly different, in order to delineate the aspects that the various regimes share, and consider the similarities/differences between those regimes in reality (Linz, 2000). Non-democratic bodies in the 18th century where generally termed as ‘absolute’ or ‘despotic’ (which includes sultanism, relevant in Islamic nations), which modified itself into ‘dictators’ in early 20th century. After the breakdown of fascism (Hitler’s rule) in Germany and communist regime (under Stalin) in the USSR, another theory came into existence during the Cold War era, wherein non-democratic regimes were known as ‘totalitarian’ and soon political bodies were categorised as totalitarian or democratic (Zakaria, 2004). However, after reviewing some specific cases (where political regimes were non-democratic yet not completely totalitarian), experts claimed that this division was rather simple and incomplete, and a third type came into existence known as the ‘authoritarian’ regime (Zakaria, 2004). Keeping in mind the Arab nations, this essay will now make a comparative study of the authoritarian regime and sultanism. A comparative study of the sultanism and authoritarian regimes Max Weber first introduced the term ‘sultanism’, and it defined cases that showed extreme ‘patrimonialism,’ distinguished by cronyism, nepotism, corruption and patronage. According to Weber, ‘Sultanism tends to arise whenever traditional domination develops an administration and a military force which are purely personal instruments of the master... Where domination... operates primarily on the basis of discretion, it will be called sultanism... The non-traditional element is not, however, rationalized in impersonal terms, but consists only in the extreme development of the ruler's discretion. It is this which distinguishes it from every form of rational authority’ (1978: 231-232). Linz and Stepan further clarified, ‘essential reality in a sultanistic regime is that all individuals, groups and institutions are permanently subject to the unpredictable and despotic intervention of the sultan, and thus all pluralism is precarious’ (1996: 52-53). Under sultanism, the line between a regime and the state becomes vague, and the ruler, despite possessing a limited social base, enjoys widespread discretionary powers. In their researches, Chehabi and Linz (1998) claimed that ideal ‘sultanism’ was founded on the notions of personal monarchy, where loyalty towards him/her is based on fear and a promise of rewards for collaboration (loyalty towards the sultan is not based on belief in the ruler’s ideologies or the ruler’s personal charisma). The sultan exercises power at his own will with no legal restraints, and no ideologies or values to restrain him. Arbitrary decisions by the sultan undermine all laws that frame the bureaucratic administration, while the sultan’s business associates, friends and family members are generally given a powerful position within the government, making distinctive bureaucratic careers almost non-existent. Corruption is present at all levels within society and administration, and sultanistic regimes show the weakness of ideological and legal justification (Chehabi and Linz, 1998). The term ‘authoritarian rule’ is often used for denoting rule by a non-democratic order, as the term tends to cover many types of non-democratic government, in the modern context (Brooker, 2009). For this reason, regime categorisation is an essential aspect within the notions of ‘authoritarian rule’. Linz defined authoritarian rule as, ‘without elaborate and guiding ideology (but with distinctive mentalities); without intensive nor extensive political mobilization (except some points in their development); and in which a leader (or occasionally a small group) exercises power within formally ill-defined limits but actually quite predictable ones’ (1970: 255). In his further studies Linz (1975) in his studies described a classical way that creates a framework for understanding authoritarianism First, authoritarian regimes require minimum political pluralism wherein, with variations, exist political groups within the order that are free from the regime’s control, and this is considered by experts as the most significant aspect of authoritarian rule (Brooker, 2009). Next, authoritarian regimes lack any form of comprehensive ideology that act as a political guide, am while ideologies may exist within authoritarian orders, they are do not form the benchmark for political activities (Brooker, 2009). Thirdly, there is no political mobilization during the regime’s rule, and lastly, while there are some limits as regard the authoritarian regime’s leader, which are vague but predictable (Brooker, 2009). In the majority of cases, an authoritarian regime has one leader in power, and there is a small hierarchal group assisting and supporting him/her. Monopolistic power remains in the hands of the leader and the hierarchal group, and the regime uses oppressive force and coercion to control the state citizens (Zakaria, 1997; Carothers, 1999). There are four basic differences between authoritarian regimes and sultanism (Lucas, 2004). According to the author, an authoritarian regime allows or tolerates pluralism within social and political groups, which has a significant effect on governmental policies. On the other hand, sultanistic regime is characterised by personalism and corruption that do not support pluralism, even within its own order. Secondly, while sultanistic and authoritarian regimes both fail to derive motivation and legitimacy from ideologies, in the case of the latter a certain common ‘mentality’ acts as the driving force behind all governmental policies (Lucas, 2004). Thirdly, while both regimes use force and coercion to maintain order, the authoritarian regime ‘aims for general political apathy that may be selectively mobilized from time to time. If a sultanistic regime attempts to mobilize society, it is only for the glorification of the ruler's ego or his personality cult. Finally, while an authoritarian regime has predictable boundaries to the power of the government, a sultanistic regime offers near-complete discretion to the leader on the limits of his power’ (Lucas, 2004: 104). Furthermore, the size of the social base often delineated the sub-types within the authoritarian regime wherein populist regimes may make use of many forms of social actors; on the other hand, bureaucratic regimes will prefer a narrow social base and will use repressive forces to control society. In case of a sultanistic regime, the social base always remains very narrow and is mainly restricted to the clients of the regime, and the sultan prefers buying the clients’ loyalty that lacks any specific social characteristics (Lucas, 2004). In order to categorise Arab monarchies rightfully, as under sultanism or an authoritarian regime, researchers, such as Mary Tetreault (2000), reviewed the political scenario in Kuwait in the 1990s, and concluded that Arab monarchies appear to be a sub-type of the authoritarian regime, rather than being sultanistic in nature. In this context, Tetreault claimed that the highlights of the Kuwaiti political scenario were marked by ‘repeated clashes between would-be citizens demanding civil and political rights and what has become over the period a deeply entrenched albeit variably autocratic traditional' regime’ (2000: 2). Here the civil populace has been at conflict with the political regime that aimed at increasing pluralism and restricting the regime’s absolute power, thus proving that the fight was not against one single person, the ruler. In her studies, Tetreault contended that based on this argument Kuwaiti regime should be categorised as authoritarian (Tetreault, 2000). While it is true that the rulers of the Middle East tend to show autocratic and dynastic dispositions, there is however no single entity holding absolute power. The powers granted to the rulers are kept under control by constitutional rules, the regime, and by citizen activities (Tetreault, 2000). While political mobilization remains restricted, political pluralism pays a significant role within Arab politics, hence placing the Middle-eastern regimes under the authoritarian category. The Arab monarchies – a subtype of the authoritarian regime While trying to categorise the Arab monarchies it is essential to review the processes that led to the creation of the ruling families and states. Unlike Europe, the Arab regimes were present even before the states came into existence. As for example, the British colonial rulers in Iraq and Jordan granted ruling powers to the Hashemite family, and placed them in control over previously non-existent nations (Posusney, 2005). Historical records also show that the same colonial powers used ruling families of Morocco and Egypt for administrating at a local level. Furthermore, in Saudi Arabia, tribal groups under the command of their leaders occupied vast territories that eventually led to state building under guidance from the US and the UK. Therefore, it is clear that in these countries the ruling families were already present, even before the state building started. As lands were occupied, the western nations assisted by providing state building tools, and helping to draw national borders, while national or group identities were created more recently (Posusney, 2005). This is distinct from sultanistic regimes, where the difference between state and regime remains rather vague, and it is evident that the Arab monarchical regimes created a new state instead of bringing an already existing state under the jurisdiction of a sultanistic regime. A study of the European monarchies showed that the rulers there had successfully created a centralised power system and a repressive order that led to remarkable economic and socio-political changes within a very short time. The Middle East rulers also achieved the same results and, as the European rulers, focused on creating a ‘traditional right’ to reign, based on hierarchy, that defined their ruling territories, and at the same time maintained a certain degree of vagueness and pluralism within the civic populace (Pratt, 2006). Monarchic rulers tend to promote pluralism within the society, which allows them to remain at the core, while controlling, manipulating and balancing diverse social groups. This allows the rulers to transcend all borders associated with regional, religious, ethnic and tribal diversities, by acting as the key element within the nation’s political system. The various antagonistic elements of diversity can be then brought under the ruler’s advocacy, and the monarch starts symbolising national unity within diversity. The creation of Arab nationalism (qawmiyya) is evident in current social trends, where the rulers have focused on Islamic traditions and the feeling of common ‘brotherhood’ (Kirby, 2000). The Arab rulers have used traditions (both at local and national levels) to link the state and their regime with the past in order to hold on to their reign (Yom and Gause, 2012). Thus, nation and state building enterprises serve the Arab regimes as guiding principles, unlike the form of ‘personality cult’ seen in sultanism. Therefore, it is evident that the Arab monarchies are a type of authoritarian regime, owing to their restricted political mobilisation, pluralism within socio-political aspects, and restrictions on the use of power by the regime members. Within the Arab regime, undoubtedly, the king is a personalistic/supreme head, but he cannot rule all by himself, and he belongs to a coalition, which is diverse in nature and comprises of a wider social base. Certain levels of political pluralism are tolerated, within the coalition and the opposition (Yom and Gause, 2012). The civic populace generally tend to be politically passive but can be mobilised using communal agenda. While the monarchy is constitutionally legal and organised in nature, its limitless powers are derived from the constitution itself. While the Arabs monarchs maintain ambiguity while defining their sovereign origin, implicating ‘divine rights’ to remain in power, the limitations on their power come from social regulations and religious dictates. Common forms of mentality as observed in the Arab regimes are often based on religious feelings, anti-colonial sentiments and traditional rights. Within this form of Arab authoritarianism, there are various other subtypes (Halliday, 2000). However, Herb limits the division into two categories, the ‘dynastic’ form of regimes and others (Herb, 1999). The dynastic regimes relate to monarchies where the ruling family has complete control over all high-ranking public offices, state institutions where family members are placed, and creates ways to settle succession related conflicts (Herb, 1999). Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both have dynastic monarchies, which are subtype of authoritarian regime. In the other forms, Herb observed that the ruling family plays a role only within political bodies, and refrains from taking part in the bureaucratic activities, except the army (Herb, 1999). Thus, here the ruler remains aloof from the routine socio-political activities, unlike the dynastic monarch. Furthermore, in the other form, the ruler actively encourages mobilisation and pluralism within society, and uses it to take part in state governance. Morocco and Jordan are examples of this other form of monarchy, under the main group of authoritarian regime. Conclusion In the Middle East, currently eight countries show a monarchic authoritarian regime, which include the UAE, Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Oman. However, the authoritarian regime in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Yemen collapsed recently in a call for democracy by the civic populace and owing to the regimes’ lack of a wide social base, despite the economic progress in these countries. From the above review, it can be suggested that while the Arab rulers are known as sultans, their form of monarchy is not the sultanistic type, but belongs to a subtype within the authoritarian regime. The remaining Arab monarchies, which are based on principles of nation and state building enterprises, have managed to develop a pliable way to reign that has helped them in surviving the challenges meted out by rapid globalisation and socio-economic development. References Bellin, E., 2004. ‘The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East. Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective’. Comparative Politics, 36 (2): 139-58. Brooker, P., 2009. Non-Democratic Regimes. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Carothers, T. 1999. ‘Civil Society: Think Again.’ Foreign Policy, 117: 18-29. Chehabi, H., and Linz, J. (eds.), 1998. Sultanistic Regimes. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Halliday, F. 2000. ‘The Fates of Monarchy in the Middle East.’ In Nation and Religion in the Middle East. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 91-107. Herb, M. 1999. All in the Family: Absolutism, Revolution, and Democracy in the Middle Eastern Monarchies. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Kirby, O. 2000. ‘Want Democracy? Get a King’. The Middle East Quarterly, 7 (4): 3-12. Linz, J. 2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Linz, J., and Stepan, A. 1996. Modern Nondemocratic Regimes in Problems of Democratic Transition & Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Linz, J. 1970. ‘An Authoritarian Regime: Spain.’ In Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology, Erik Allardt and Stein Rokkan (eds.). New York: Free Press. Lucas, R. 2004. ‘Monarchical Authoritarianism: Survival and Political Liberalization in a Middle Eastern Regime Type.’ International Journal of Middle East Studies, 36 (1): 103-19. Posusney, M., 2005. ‘The Middle East Democracy Deficit in Comparative Perspective.’ In Posusney, M.P., and M.P. Angrist, (eds.), Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Regimes and Resistance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pratt, N. 2006. Democracy and Authoritarianism in the Arab World. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Tetreault, M., 2000. Stories of Democracy: Politics and Society in Contemporary Kuwait. Columbia: Columbia University Press. Wall, L. 2011. ‘The Lessons of 1989’. Journal of Democracy, 22 (4): 13-23. Weber, M. 1978. Economy & Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Yom, S., and Gause, G. 2012. ‘Resilient Royals: How Arab Monarchies Hang On.’ Journal of Democracy, 23 (4), 74-88. Zakaria, F. 1997. ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’. Foreign Affairs, 76 (6): 22-43. Zakaria, F. 2004. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Read More