The Problem With Studying Middle Eastern Politics: Where We Get it Wrong

Map of Authoritarian Regimes in the ME/NA region.
Map showing the various regime types in the Middle East (Center for American Progress)

Lisa Anderson, author of the article Searching Where the Light Shines: Studying Democratization in the Middle East, notices how Political Scientists everywhere cannot understand how the Middle East and North Africa have not turned into democracies. With many nations in Latin America and southeast Asia democratizing, Political Scientists remain confused as to why the Middle East has abstained from it. Anderson notes that the largest issues with the current research is that the field remains “profoundly ahistorical” and tries to compare the Middle East to completely different regions like Latin America or the Eastern Bloc without taking into account each region’s vastly different histories and cultures (Anderson 192, 195). Political Scientists assume that industrialization would lead to liberal democracies like in other developing regions, and naturally so. However, because politics in various regions operate differently, attempts to use global or regional theories that are not focused on the Middle East are bound to fall short.

Anderson notes how Political Scientists “all seem to end up at the same old watering holes” because they do not take the region’s history, economic, or social problems, leading to incomplete explanations for the Middle East’s authoritarian nature (Anderson 201). Anderson notes how many researchers believe Islam is the reason that authoritarianism is rampant (Anderson 197). Anderson believes this approach to be misguided, because Islam is the majority religion of a few democracies, and is not a likely reason as to why the region is authoritarian. Anderson shows that Political Scientists have a bias towards democracy, which poses a massive issue when studying authoritarianism. Monarchies, dictatorships, and non-competitive republics have been a larger part of history than democracy, so researchers ought to understand that authoritarianism has been the “norm” (Anderson 200-201). When we think about the Middle East, we do not consider that the region has its own distinct culture, history, and traditions that have survived for centuries. Understanding those will make the study far easier.

When studying authoritarian regimes and the Middle East, we need to have at least a basic understanding of Middle Eastern history and culture. Knowing the Middle East’s colonial past, the age of Arab Socialism, Western intervention, and recent uprisings is crucial to understanding the region. We also need to have a firm grasp on how Middle Eastern economies, cultures, and governments work together to create the environment in which they live. Understanding their economic situations and history are crucial for understanding why the Middle East has a vast number of oppressive states in the region. Economics often dictates how a state operates and tells how governments respond to their populations. Because economics, government, and culture are so intertwined, it is entirely necessary to understand all three to understand why certain regimes can thrive. Rather than focusing on just data and trends, we need to understand the history, economics, and political culture of the Middle East for a comprehensive understanding of the region.

Map of the Arab Spring Uprisings
Widespread Protests swept across the Middle East in 2011 (Council on Foreign Relations)

Anderson also wrote her paper before the Arab Spring Uprisings of 2011, which destabilized the region, uprooted a few regimes, and left many areas in ruin. However, most of these states either went into collapse like in Yemen or Libya, or into warfare like Syria and Iraq for a period. Despite these failures, however, there are some optimistic takeaways in favor of democracy in the Middle East. Before the uprisings, democracy possibly coming to the region seemed entirely hopeless. “Western bias” clouded the minds of many Political Scientists during the 1990’s, so when those years were the “high water mark” of democracy coming to the Middle East, researchers went into despair over the region in believing that democracy would never show up (Anderson 191, 195). However, the widespread mobilization of people across the region shows a dramatic sign of life for democracy in the Middle East. There were never as widespread demonstrations as this, so while these uprisings had limited to no effect on the governments of the Middle East, there should certainly be optimism for the region. Political Scientists should be very optimistic for the future of the Middle East.

 

 

Bibliography:

Anderson, Lisa. 2006. “Searching where the light shines: studying democratization in the Middle East” Annual Review of Political Science 9:189–214


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “The Problem With Studying Middle Eastern Politics: Where We Get it Wrong”

  1. Myra Naqvi Avatar
    Myra Naqvi

    The inclusion of maps is awesome! Now that many political scientists have acknowledged the need to obtain a cultural and historical understanding of the region at focus, it is important that we distinguish between empirical and theoretical data. This will be helpful in preventing analysts from making misguided predictions about the future possibility of democratization of MENA states.

  2. Annie Elliott Avatar
    Annie Elliott

    Hello Henry, I really appreciate that you mentioned the time that Anderson wrote the article and how current events may have changed perspectives. Considering how some states are “backsliding” into authoritarian regimes, do you still think there is hope? Do you think the Arab Spring had an impact on the way scholars study MENA?

  3. craigm Avatar
    craigm

    Great job! You explained Lisa Anderson’s arguments very well, and the visual maps bring immense life to your post. You go in great detail in regards to the common misconceptions made by political scientists. I have no criticisms, but for the sake of improvement, maybe provide some more of your own personal thoughts regarding the article. Great job!

  4. cruzr Avatar
    cruzr

    Very in depth analysis! I really enjoy how far you went with the inclusion of quotes especially when backing up the points you make! I also like that you mentioned the fact that understanding the regions culture is useful in not making the same mistakes previous analysts have made. And as you said, data and trends are useful but they can’t be the only factors taken into account when understanding these issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *