Looking at an Authoritarian state’s political and economic system is one of the most important things in studying them from a broader perspective. Because the Middle East has a vast number of strategic rents like oil, canals (the Suez Canal), or water, studying how they allocate these resources and fund their states is extremely important, especially since these states all spend large amounts of their revenues on their security systems. When this revenue comes into politics, it is very important to see how a state uses these resources, and whether it goes to paying off or scaring off their population.
In addition, studying a regime’s structure is also very important, as the method in which a state holds its legitimacy is very important. For example, a state with a personalist regime may have trouble shifting gears if their leader is out of power because there is not as many institutional guardrails to keep stability. Whereas a hereditary monarchy will likely be able to survive through more hardship, as they often have legitimacy through traditional or even religious justification. The way a state justifies their power is very important. In addition, a state can also decide whether they use more financial or data-based means like economic success and general well-being or whether they choose to heavily repress opponents and scare their opponents into cooperation. Understanding the dynamics of how the regime keeps its control is essential in understanding how a state reacts to hardship, and explaining why their societies act they ways they do.
Finally studying a state’s history is paramount to understanding why some regimes fell during the 2011 uprisings, and why places like Tunisia, who actually implemented a somewhat successful democracy for a few years, differed greatly from their neighbors like Libya or Algeria, where their uprisings led to persistent civil conflict and in the case of Libya, foreign intervention. A state’s history with colonization, unbroken rule, and civil society prior to the 2011 uprisings are key in understanding how states responded to the 2011 uprisings and other challenges to their rule. A state’s response to protest is also a good indicator as to how well a transition could go. For example, Egypt and Tunisia stayed relatively peaceful, as Ben-Ali and Mubarak’s regimes both went away peaceably, whereas the Qaddafi and Assad regimes of Libya and Syria chose to shoot the opposition away, sparking civil wars and political violence. How a state responds historically to uprisings, and how their populations deal with their governments are both essential in understanding the dynamics of change in the Middle East.
Both broader discussions and detailed case studies have their place in comparative politics; it is entirely dependent on the end goal of the analysis that guides which one is better. If researchers are studying broader trends across the region, then case studies would stall them out, so they should stick with more broad research methods, like political-economic factors. However, case studies and historical analysis are far more helpful when diving into the specifics of a country. A broader look into a country like Libya may prove fruitful in some instances for explaining their uprising, however a case study will go further as there is more nuance that a broader study generally cannot get, especially when discussing the specifics.
Leave a Reply