Arab Spring: Inter-Paradigm Debate - Case Study Example

How does the inter-paradigm debate between democratisation and itarian resilience help explaining the Arab Spring? Institution Date Introduction The Arab Spring came about as a complete surprise for many individuals not only in the political, but also the academic world and this was because of its ability to threaten the autocratic governments of the Middle East. Furthermore, protests in the Middle East were not a new phenomenon and had been recorded through the twentieth century when they took place from time to time in a bid to ensure that desired changes were achieved or to vent the population’s anger against the various governments. One would give the example of protests or rebellions that took place in Egypt in 18821 and later in 1919 where strikes ensured that the country was brought to a standstill while at the same time creating conditions necessary for the toppling of the government. The protests and uprisings that took place in the Middle East throughout the twentieth century not only brought about the fall of governments, but they also led to the rise of authoritarian governments whose aim was to prevent such uprisings from taking place within their jurisdictions. Therefore, when the Arab Spring began, it was not taken as seriously as was later the case because it was believed that the protests would eventually die out as they had in previous years. Furthermore, it was believed that the resilience of the authoritarian governments in the Middle East had made them so stable that no protest would be able to overcome their secret police as well as their military apparatus. The paradigm of authoritarian resilience turned out not to be the case and the uprisings that took place in some of the most important Middle Eastern countries with authoritarian regimes came about as a surprise. The Middle Eastern Uprisings The protests that were the beginning of the Arab Spring took place in Tunisia after the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi as a protest against the ill treatment that he had received from corrupt policemen. This action created a sense of outrage in a country that had for decades been ruled by authoritarian figures. Such strong protests against the government, while they were unexpected, were not believed to pose a threat to the government of Zine Ben Ali’s twenty three year old government because protests had taken place before and these had been put down effectively. The lack of recognition for the threat that these protests posed to his government and his belief that his massive police would be able to put it down ensured the demise of Ben Ali’s regime. The level of protests were so massive that twenty eight days after they began, Ben Ali resigned the presidency and fled to Saudi Arabia. The fall of this regime was quite surprising not only because of the rapidness of its demise, but also in the manner through which it took place. This regime had withstood similar protests in 2008 where the actions of police had ensured that not only were they broken, but also allowed for the further strengthening of the paradigm of authoritarian resilience. Ben Ali was viewed as one of the region’s most enlightened authoritarian leaders who was constantly aware of its shifting political nature to such an extent that he was able to adapt to it in order to maintain his power. After coming to power in a constitutional coup in 1987, Ben Ali had made a promise to his people that he would bring about massive reforms that would ensure an improvement in their lives.2 Instead of implementing the reforms that he had promised, he went the other way and developed an authoritarian regime which was meant to be resistant to any political change that took place in society. His promise of liberalising the country ended through the establishment of a regime that was essentially a police state where despite having a relatively small population, it had one of the largest police forces in the region. It was believed that with his experience at overthrowing the previous Tunisian regime of Habib Bourguiba as well as the massive police force under his command, he would be able to resist any threat against his own regime. Zine Ben Ali was seen as one of the authoritarian figures in the North Africa and Middle Eastern (MENA) region who would likely remain at the helm of government until he died. However, this turned out not to be the case because instead of being able to resist the pressure put on his regime by the protests that erupted following Bouazizi’s death, Ben Ali ended up resigning the presidency. This ended up being termed the Jasmine Revolution and it ushered in a new era in the politics of the Middle East as it sparked a wave of protests and uprisings across the entire MENA region. Even some of the most stable authoritarian regimes came to realise how precarious their positions were and these chose to institute some level of reform in order to placate the protestors. The widespread unrest in the MENA region took many of its governments by surprise and this was to such an extent that some of the authoritarian regimes did not realise that their end was at hand. This was especially the case in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen whose governments ended up falling as a result of resistance to the demands of protestors. All the leaders of the three countries mentioned above seemed to be in denial about what was taking place in their countries and they chose to take hostile action against the protestors, with dire results. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya was overthrown following a rebellion that erupted in his country with NATO air support and this leader was eventually killed. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, who at first seemed ready to resist the demands of protestors and remain in power resigned the presidency after eighteen days of protests and this leader was arrested and prosecuted for crimes ranging from violence against protestors to corruption.3 In Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, after violently resisting protests for months opted for a peaceful transition where elections were held and he ceded power in return for immunity from prosecution in the violent role that he played during the protests. Meanwhile, other governments in MENA that were threatened by the protests also took place to reassure the protestors that reforms were imminent. This was the case in Sudan and Iraq where both its leaders declared that they would not run in the following elections. Jordan, on the other hand, saw its king remove two governments in succession in a bid to placate the anger of protestors. While the unrest in MENA had an effect on the different regimes in the region, it should be noted that these effects differed according to the diverse circumstances prevalent in the countries affected. The main aim of these protests was to ensure an end to the authoritarianism in the MENA countries and the ushering in of democracy. The lack of political representation acted as a trigger in most of the countries affected but while this was the case, the situations within them differed significantly. Most of the countries in the MENA region were governed by aging leaders who did not believe in loosening their grip on power and instead wanted to transfer power to their own children, as seen in Egypt.4 However, the challenges that the protestors faced were quite different depending on the country so that there was a realisation that each country had to follow its own path in order to achieve a democratic future. For example, despite Tunisia being headed by an authoritarian regime for many years and despite its corrupt nature, it had one of the most competent systems of government in the MENA and this allowed for the continuation of government services even after the demise of Ben Ali’s regime.5 This was not the case in Egypt where the government had essentially relied on corrupt practices in order to function and when Mubarak stepped down, the country would have fallen to chaos had it not been for the intervention of the military, which unlike in other MENA countries, is a powerful player in Egyptian politics. It should also be noted the unlike Egypt, the Tunisian military remained aloof from the country’s domestic affairs and this allowed for a relatively peaceful transition of power. In Libya, the situation was very bad because after the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime, it was essential for the new government to begin afresh and this meant that it had to form new state structures to accommodate reforms. These attempts have so far failed and have led to a situation where Libya has ended up becoming embroiled in a civil war between different political factions. Democratising Attempts and the Resilience of Authoritarian Regimes The ability of democracy to take root in the MENA region has over the years come to be questioned by diverse academics. This situation has come about because despite the numerous protests and revolutions that have taken place in the region, none have been successful enough to ensure the reforms necessary for the establishment of a truly democratic state. The revolutions that have taken place have often led to the exchange of one authoritarian regime to another; spawning diverse theories concerning authoritarian resilience in the region. There have been suggestions that as a result of the failure of protests as well as the short length of their impact on the political scene of MENA countries, democracy is incompatible to Islamic and Arab culture.6 The belief that Islamic culture is incompatible to democracy has been debunked because of the realisation that religion does not necessarily affect the development of democracy in a country, as seen through the development of democracy in Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia; all Muslim majority countries. The resilience of authoritarianism in the MENA region at the expense of democracy has largely been blamed on the manner through which the people in the countries involved have often been accepting of them. The ability of the authoritarian regimes in the MENA to survive can be attributed to the extraordinary measures that they take to ensure their survival. Such measures include creating large police forces loyal to them as well as the appointment of individuals loyal to them, mostly family members, to powerful positions in the security forces. Moreover, some authoritarian regimes in the MENA often used bribery to achieve and retain the loyalty of their supporters; essentially ensuring their long term survival spanning decades. A major reason for the resilience of authoritarian regimes in the MENA that has been put forward is that these regimes have had western support since the Cold War and this has continued to the present day. Most of the regimes that were affected by the Arab Spring were those that had the support of the west and this was believed to be a reason for their survival before the unrest began. However, despite this support, it should be noted that authoritarian regimes did not remain as they were and often had to change some of their policies in the form of reforms to ensure their survival. The political stasis of these regimes was combined with limited social liberalisation so that they made some concessions to their people, mostly in the economic arena while withholding any political power.7 In the world today, it is essential for rulers to introduce some form of political reforms because this is one of the few ways through which political legitimacy can be maintained in the international community. While most authoritarian regimes in the MENA introduced such reforms, the latter were quite limited and were only a veneer for their continued authoritarianism. The scarcity of resources in the region other than oil also made it imperative for leaders to embrace some form of reform because it allowed for the development of trade ties with other countries in the world which made sure that the shortage of resources was remedied through imports. It has been suggested that the scarcity of economic resources makes political change unavoidable and the Arab Spring has been attributed to such circumstances in the MENA. Authoritarian regimes in the MENA have survived as a result of their knack for adapting to those pressures, from the international community that are unavoidable. The actions that these governments have taken in order to adapt have included a level of opening up of political space in their countries so that elections can take place.8 Despite a level of contestation taking place, in such countries as Saudi Arabia, elections have only been allowed at a municipal level with national authority remaining firmly under the control of the Saud Family. The ability to change has become dependent on the circumstances both locally and internationally; making it near impossible for any tangible change to take place without much pressure from the outside world. The fear of withdrawal of support from traditional western allies has led to a situation where some authoritarian regimes have been forced to make concessions to their people and this has come to be considered as a step in the right direction. Autocratic governments have also allowed for opening up of their economies and this process of liberalisation has become important for the social and economic elite because of the benefits that they are able to accrue from trade with the rest of the world. By choosing to undertake reforms in diverse sectors of the economy without necessarily giving up any significant power, most of the authoritarian regimes in the MENA have been able to adapt themselves to the changing circumstances in the region; allowing them to manage changes in the social, political and economic sectors without endangering their positions in their respective countries. Reasons for the Arab Spring One account that has been given for the rise of the Arab Spring was that it was a result of the development and persistence of patrimonial networks which ensured that there was little mobility in the political sphere.9 For most of the Arab population, many of who were young, unemployed people, the patrimonial system that had been developed by the authoritarian regimes ruling over them was very frustrating. The lack of social, economic, and political mobility that it brought about was considered to be among the reasons why they could not find jobs. In addition, in these countries, one had to have connections in order to ensure success in his or her life and for most of the youth, this was not possible. The uprisings were therefore not only a means of seeking to bring about changes in their societies, but also for the youth to vent their anger against regimes that had given them so little over the years. The global economic crisis was also another trigger to the uprisings especially in those MENA countries which did not have enough oil resources to ensure that they provided their people the necessary incentives not to take part in the unrest. Some of the countries affected, such as Egypt and Yemen, do not have significant oil output and revenues and therefore, unlike Saudi Arabia, did not have the means of countering the social satisfaction which came about during the uprisings. Therefore, the ability of governments to use their revenues to placate their citizens from taking part in the unrest that had gripped the region played a role in stemming some of the uprisings and helped in the sustenance of the some of the authoritarian regimes in the MENA. Another reason that has been given for the rise of the Arab Spring is that the political systems of seven countries in the MENA region were headed by individuals with a security services background. This has been attributed to a form of government adapted from the Mamluk authoritarian style of rule that had been prevalent in Egypt for many centuries. Under such regimes, individuals with the military background and their families tended to take over governance and they would end up being succeeded by their children or other relatives.10 This was a situation that had come to affect such countries as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Algeria and Sudan, with the first five being hotspots of the uprisings that evolved into the Arab Spring. The first five countries named above were headed by individuals with security backgrounds and these used their security forces to ensure that their grip on power remained firm. The fact that most were aging and that some, such as Gaddafi and Mubarak wanted to hand the reins of power to their sons was considered to be an infringement of the right of their people to determine their own futures. The result was the social unrest that had began in Tunisia during the Jasmine Revolution spread to other countries in the MENA headed by military figures. However, despite their military backgrounds, the leaders of Sudan and Algeria did not face any serious unrest in their countries even though these countries had suffered civil war as well as social and economic problems for many years without any reforms taking place. Conclusion The discussion above has shown that the different social, political, and economic environment within the MENA countries contributed to the manner through which the unrest among them ended up playing out. The unrest that ended up spreading to the rest of the MENA came about after the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi as a protest against the ill treatment that he had received from corrupt policemen. Furthermore, while protest in the MENA were not new, the widespread unrest of the Arab Spring took many of its governments by surprise and this was to such an extent that some of the authoritarian regimes did not realise that their end was at hand. In addition, the discussion has shown that while the unrest had an effect on the different regimes in the region, the ability of democracy to take root in the MENA has over the years come to be questioned by diverse academics with some stating that democracy is incompatible with Islam and Arab culture. Finally, authoritarian regimes in the region owe their survival to their knack for adapting to pressures from the international community that are unavoidable. References Angrist, M.P. 2013, “The making of Middle East Politics.” In M. P. Angrist (ed.), Politics and society in the contemporary Middle East, 2nd Edition, Lynne Rienner. AP. 1987, “A coup is reported in Tunisia.” The New York Times. [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/07/world/a-coup-is-reported-in-tunisia.html?pagewanted=1 [accessed 11 May 2015]. Bokhtari, K. & Senzai, F. 2013. Political Islam in the Age of democratization. New York, Palgrave. Cockburn, P. 2011, "So the Arab landscape shifts – and confusion reigns." The Independent. [Online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/patrick-cockburn-so-the-arab-landscape-shifts-ndash-and-confusion-reigns-2269022.html [accessed 11 May 2015]. Gasper, M. 2010, “Making of the Modern Middle East.” In Ellen Lust (ed.), The Middle East, 12th edition, CQ Press. Hendawi, H. 2011, “Egypts Mubarak refuses to quit, hands VP powers.” My Way News [Online] Available at: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20110211/D9LA9H180.html [accessed 11 May 2015]. Levitsky, S. & Way, Lucan. 2010. Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lust, E. (ed.). 2010. The Middle East, 12th Edition. CQ Press. Selvik, K. & Stenslie, S. 2011. Stability and Change in the Modern Middle East. London, IB Tauris. Ismail, B.Y. 2014, “Tunisia: The Victory of Secularism over Islamism?” Jadaliyya. [Online] Available at: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/19848/tunisia_the-victory-of-secularism-over-islamism- [accessed 11 May 2015]. Read More