Middle East Politics and Democracy PDF

Middle East Politics Democracy The current status of democracy in the Middle East Global trends in democratization Democratic adventures in MENA Iran ○ Mossadegh elected PM in 1951, overthrown by a CIA-backed coup in 1953, installing the Shah. Overthrown by the revolution in 19...

Middle East Politics Democracy The current status of democracy in the Middle East Global trends in democratization Democratic adventures in MENA Iran ○ Mossadegh elected PM in 1951, overthrown by a CIA-backed coup in 1953, installing the Shah. Overthrown by the revolution in 1979. Algeria ○ Multi-party elections introduced in 1988, military stepped in in 1992 after Islamist victory, led to a civil war. Iraq ○ Parliamentary elections after in 2005, future question mark. Egypt ○ Free elections in 2011 after Mubarak’s fall, military coup in 2013. Democratic adventures in MENA Lebanon ○ Power-sharing democracy in 1943, civil war between 1975-1990, instability and future question mark. Libya ○ Elections after Gaddafi’s fall in 2012, ongoing civil conflicts. Palestine ○ Elections won by Hamas in 2006, political division b/w Hamas and Fatah, no follow-up elections, war with Israel. Tunisia ○ Elections after Ben Ali’s fall in 2011, the most successful so far, but concerns of backsliding recently. Democracy and freedom in the Middle East Why are the countries in the MENA region mostly authoritarian? Why are democracies short-lived? Look at: ○ Cultural explanations ○ Economic explanations ○ Upgraded authoritarianism ○ Lack of civil society ○ Strong coercive apparatus ○ Geopolitical factors ○ Colonial legacies (1) Cultural explanation Argument: Islamic culture is not suitable for democracy. ○ Islamic culture emphasizes communal loyalty and obedience to authority, which limits the appeal of liberal democracy. Muslim societies are despotic in nature. Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington suggested that some Islamic values may be at odds with democracy, which is a value coming from the West. Examples: ○ Saudi Arabia justifies its monarchy through Islamic principles, maintaining religious control over law and governance. Iran’s theocratic system allows unelected religious leaders to wield significant power. Critique: ○ Too orientalist and deterministic. Examples like Turkey, Tunisia, and Indonesia show that Muslim-majority societies can adopt democratic institutions. Large Islamic societies living under democratic regimes also offer a counter argument. (2) Economic explanations - 1 Argument: The Rentier State Theory ○ States with abundant natural resources, such as oil, derive most of their revenue from exports rather than taxation. As a result, governments have little incentive to be accountable or build participatory political institutions, since citizens don’t pressure the state for representation. Examples: ○ Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar rely heavily on oil rents. These states provide welfare and subsidies to citizens, creating a patron-client relationship that reduces demands for democratization. Critique: ○ Not all oil-poor countries are democratic. Syria and Egypt remain authoritarian despite having fewer resources, suggesting that resource wealth alone isn’t sufficient to explain authoritarianism. And not all resource-rich countries are authoritarian, as the cases of Norway, Botswana, and Chile show. (3) Economic explanations - 2 Argument: Economic liberalization and authoritarian durability ○ Economic liberalization — market reforms, privatization, and foreign investment — can strengthen authoritarian regimes (usually expected otherwise). Leaders use these reforms to consolidate elite support, maintain patronage networks, and co-opt private business, ensuring regime survival without democratization. Examples: ○ In Egypt under Mubarak, reforms opened the economy, but political power remained tightly controlled by the ruling elite. Tunisia under Ben Ali liberalized the economy but ensured that regime allies benefited from the changes. Critique: ○ Economic liberalization often worsens inequality and fosters public discontent, as seen in the Arab Spring uprisings, which were partly fueled by frustration with economic inequality and corruption. (4) Upgraded authoritarianism explanation Argument: Authoritarian regimes adapt to changing circumstances. ○ Regimes adapt to maintain control by adopting selective reforms. These regimes allow controlled elections, limited civil liberties, and some media freedom to create an appearance of openness while ensuring no meaningful opposition threatens their power. Examples: ○ Jordan and Morocco permit elections and political parties but maintain ultimate control through monarchical authority. Egypt under Sisi holds elections but suppresses opposition through legal manipulation and repression. Critique: ○ While this strategy offers short-term stability, it risks increasing public frustration, which could lead to future uprisings or destabilization, as seen in the Arab Spring. (5) Civil society explanation Argument: Suppression kills civil society, which kills democracy. ○ Weak or suppressed civil society organizations prevent the development of broad democratic movements. Authoritarian regimes actively undermine civil society through repression and censorship, ensuring no viable opposition can emerge. Examples: ○ In Egypt, both Mubarak and Sisi cracked down on independent media and NGOs, limiting political mobilization. In Bahrain, opposition movements were fragmented along sectarian lines, reducing their ability to challenge the regime. Critique: ○ Overlooks instances like Tunisia, where civil society played a key role in democratization despite repression, suggesting that other factors also influence outcomes. (6) Coercive apparatus explanation Argument: Strong coercive power blocks democratization. ○ The persistence of authoritarianism is linked to the strength of the coercive apparatus (e.g., military, police). When the regime controls well-funded security forces, they can suppress dissent and prevent democratization. Examples: ○ In Egypt, the military remained loyal to Mubarak during his reign, using repression to stifle opposition. Assad in Syria relied on military force to crush protests during the Arab Spring. Critique: ○ Doesn’t explain cases like Tunisia, where the military refrained from using force against protestors, contributing to the country’s democratic transition. (7) Geopolitical explanation Argument: Great powers block democratization. ○ Some authoritarian regimes in the Middle East survive with the backing of external powers (e.g., the U.S., Russia) because they align with geopolitical interests such as maintaining regional stability or controlling oil resources. Examples: ○ Saudi Arabia and Egypt receive significant military and financial aid from the United States, ensuring regime survival. In Syria, Russia’s military intervention in 2015 saved the Assad regime from collapse during the civil war. Critique: ○ External support is not always enough to ensure authoritarian survival. U.S.-backed leaders like Mubarak in Egypt were eventually overthrown despite foreign support. (8) Colonial legacy explanation Argument: Arbitrary borders don’t allow democratization. ○ Arbitrary borders imposed by colonial powers divided ethnic and religious groups, creating unstable states. These states resorted to authoritarianism to maintain internal stability and control over diverse populations. Examples: ○ In Iraq, British colonial authorities grouped Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish populations within one state, leading to sectarian tensions that were later exploited by authoritarian leaders like Saddam Hussein. Lebanon’s confessional system, established during the French mandate, divided power along religious lines, leading to political paralysis and conflict. Critique: ○ Not all post-colonial countries remain authoritarian. India, also shaped by colonialism, developed into a stable democracy, indicating that colonial legacy alone cannot explain authoritarianism. Case: Tunisia’s democratization Fall of Ben Ali (2011): ○ Tunisia’s revolution, part of the Arab Spring, began with widespread protests against corruption, repression, and unemployment, forcing President Ben Ali to flee. Interim Government and National Dialogue (2011-2013): ○ Transitional authorities managed elections, but political instability and assassinations threatened the process. A National Dialogue Quartet (comprising civil society organizations) mediated between political factions to stabilize the country. Constitution Drafting (2014): ○ A progressive constitution was adopted, enshrining human rights, equality, and the separation of powers. Elections and Power-Sharing (2014-2019): ○ Free elections brought pluralistic governments to power, with Ennahda (an Islamist party) and secular parties forming coalitions, showing a commitment to compromise. Case: Tunisia’s key successes Civil Society Engagement: ○ The National Dialogue Quartet played a pivotal role in de-escalating tensions. Compromise among Political Actors: ○ Key players, including Ennahda, prioritized stability over ideological dominance. Relatively Homogeneous Society: ○ Unlike many Middle Eastern states, Tunisia lacked deep ethnic or sectarian divides. Military Non-Interference: ○ Tunisia’s military refrained from intervening in politics, allowing civilian leaders to take control.