• Search

  Search

• Recent Posts

  • Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown
  • Reflecting on MENA
  • A Siege of Salt and Sand
  • Rentierism
  • Lisa Anderson Reflection

• Recent Comments

Monarchical rule in the region of MENA while having survived a long period of time has faced its array of challenges and its leaders tend to face a number of issues while in power. Russell E. Lucas, in “MONARCHICAL AUTHORITARIANISM: SURVIVAL AND POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION IN A MIDDLE EASTERN REGIME TYPE”, distinguishes between authoritarianism and sultanism, two varying regime types that are pertinent in understanding ways monarchies rule. These are considered to be subtypes of monarchical regimes. In accordance to Lucas, authoritarian rule allows for “or, at least tolerates–pluralism among social groups”, here pluralism has a useful impact on governmental policies. On the other hand sultanistic regimes give way to personalism and corruption in the atomization of social groups. Both can create issues for their rulers. On the one hand having an authoritative regime where there’s the freedom to have more than one group of authority in existence, can create grounds for a higher risk of overturning of the ruler given that they aren’t the only entity in power. Additionally, giving freedom to have conversation within social groups and create that coexistence while creating legitimacy and a perception of freedom, it can also create spaces for different beliefs to exist and that can be risky. But being corrupt and personalist creates tension, and a higher reliability on a coercive apparatus which isn’t cheap. While there isn’t actual legitimacy in either, there’s still the perception that there is in an authoritative regime. Sultanistic regimes on the other hand, as Lucas mentions are driven by a “cult of personality”, which increases tension and the perception of what can and can’t be said given the extremism a cult leader brings. He also mentions that while there isn’t a general fear to repress citizens descent over their leader, authoritarian regimes tend to “aim for general political apathy that may be selectively mobilized from time to time”, which means that there’s still space for a perception of freedom by citizens. On the other hand sultanisitc regimes tend to only mobilize societies for ” the glorification of the ruler’s ego or his personality cult”. While this may seem very useful with regards to control over its citizens, it can also be very dangerous because there’s high levels of tension, fear and the overall utilization of the coercive apparatus. And one last thing that’s mentioned about sultanistic regimes are the ways in which the power go the government “offers near-complete discretion to the leader on the limits of his power”, meaning that citizens are essentially left in the dark. Overall, while this can be useful in the moment, this also means that the country needs to run on a very particular basis where coercion is maximized and the country’s leader needs to keep his head on a swivel because tension here is very high. In essence the use of a coercive apparatus on behalf of how a country rules can be very useful but also very risk. Furthermore, citizens need a way to express themselves, if encapsulated and oppressed under what would be perceived to be a sultanic regime, it can go south very quickly. And as Lucas mentions, monarchies are more likely to use political liberalization to stay afloat, that is because having too much control, being too possessive can ultimately create more uproar within civil society. Public support can be gained and so can some levels of trust. This is very useful in the overall trajectory of these regimes.

Sources:

Studying MENA requires a unique perspective given its vast history, culture and complex regime types. Whether it’s the various struggles these regions face on their journey towards democratization or the continued authoritarian regimes and their strength in the region, it’s vital to give each of these tools equal importance in order to fully understand why authoritarian regimes hold as much power as they do.
Take for example the effects of regime types. Within MENA countries are either categorized as Monarchies or Republics. Monarchies are regime types where power is centered around a king or a queen and their predecessor is within the family so power can’t go anywhere else. On the other hand within Republics, a leader is chosen by voting, however, that doesn’t always mean elections will be fully legitimate or justly done. Diving even deeper into each one of these, there are what are considered to be party regimes which are either personalist, military, or single party. If we start with the personalist party, firstly, they don’t have to be monarchies but above that, they’re heavily reliant on a charismatic leader who likely isn’t in power through elections but because of certain relationships they may have. The issue this creates is that within these countries, power can’t be given to someone who is suitable for the position because it’ll stay in a tight circle where only those who are close to the leader can move up. This creates grounds for corruption and lower levels of trust between citizens and their leaders. Looking at military regimes, they often come to power after cues and after a country is overrun and key ministries are all run by the military. And then within single-party regimes, there’s the common rule that while other parties may be allowed to run and be tolerated except for when they challenge that of the current party. Again, this doesn’t allow for a freedom of being able to move away from the party that may currently be in place and therefore pushing out an authoritative leader is much less easy.
Additionally, when we view the ways in which resource endowment affects the region, this also opens up a whole new perspective on the ways each of these regimes functions and why they may be more coercive/controlling of their citizens. Each country in the region has a unique amount of wealth and resources allocated to their leader and therefore with wealth comes greed and an urgency to maintain that power for them. This is further exemplified by the lack of taxation that occurs within the region. Because of this citizens are left with less of a connection to their leaders and therefore it’s harder for them to challenge or demand change. And beyond that, being a country with higher oil rents allows them to more freely use a coercive apparatus which in turn deters citizens from demanding change as well. And it would also be obvious that those in power would likely therefore not want to give up their power. Plus, giving up power on many occasions may mean the death of their leader or their family so once the regime is set, pushing them out is a lot more difficult.
I think that specifically looking at single case studies like Wedeen’s book on Syria is something that’s extremely useful because unlike Cammett, Diwan, Richards, and Waterbury’s studies, the actual lives of individuals are viewed and understood. While the broader understanding of the region is functional with regards to regime types, resource endowments and all these specificities, it is ultimately individuals living in that environment that face the struggles of authoritarian regimes. And single case studies also allow for a deeper understanding of the specifics within a certain country which can be useful in that there’s less of a generalization in context and information.

Climate change has left a lasting impact on environments across the world. The film A Siege of Salt and Sand, primarily focuses on the struggles Tunisia has faced as a result of the ongoing climate crisis. Tunisia’s been facing rising sea levels, decreases in fish to catch, and growing desert. With the transition of government from a dictatorship to democracy that was going on at the time, polices defending against the climate crisis were scarce given that the previous leader saw environmental issues as fake. And it didn’t help that the Tunisian government primarily focused on economic recovery following the governmental transition, completely ignoring the ongoing environmental issues.

Tunisia’s onslaught of issues vastly impacted its citizens in more than one way. Bad systems of irrigation affected crop growth and agriculture, leaving citizens with very little to sell or eat. New diseases like the Leishmaniasis parasite, which was once rare, began to spread. Tunisian citizens once saw the ocean as a great friend, but it no longer provided much sustenance with fish and due to the rising sea levels over 65% of date palms had died. According to one of the people interviewed “the sea is unknown now”, while it could give you fish one day, the next it could attack someones house and submerge it under water. Entire areas like Djerba are no longer seen the same, while once fruitful and green, it’s now dry and arid. Furthermore, citizens also faced issues with the sand and wind. Sand encroachments have been drowning entire homes. This has affected fertile land, schooling, and transportation/movement. One solution to that as mentioned in the film was artificial sand dunes but a lot of work is needed for that. And on top if that the price of water continued to rise.

However, it is important to note that Tunisia formed a new constitution on January 27th of 2014, after much debate. It became the third country after Ecuador and the Dominican Republic to include climate change in their constitution. But that doesn’t solve the problem immediately, if ever. Issues have gotten to the point of no return, where policy can now only do so much. Nonetheless it’s a step in the right direction. Citizens now know at least that they can see policies which actually can prove beneficial and helpful to their demands and needs. And there is now an understand that climate change is a genuine issue within society and that domestically there measures which can be taken to aid in these issues.

While the unusual sizing of oil rents are a factor in the damaging political and social outcomes of MENA, factors such as variation in regional population sizes and the effects of repression have vast negative impacts on the political and social sectors of this region.

The relationship between Population sizes and oil rents create a number of issues often to do with the ways in which citizens are controlled within certain regions. For example, if a region has a smaller population, control is much easier  because those employed in these nations are foreigners who have no connection to that nation. Them being foreigners grants them no rights in that nation and it’s cheap labor. For those who are citizens, because taxing is minimal if any, their connection to the state itself is low. A lack of taxation means there’s no incentive for the state to do anything about improvements within the country that help with the quality of life and citizens are also deterred from trying. Being that they see no improvement and they don’t directly see the income that their country is receiving, it lends to them staying stagnant. Citizens are less incentivized to actually turn against the government or ask for what they deserve.

The “repression effect”, highlighted by Michael Ross in Does Oil Hinder Democracy, is another factor that may be blame for the damaging effects of these region. He argues that resource wealth has two possible reason that can lead to higher militarized governments. One is purely due to self-interest, authoritarian regimes yearn to defending against popular pressure and will continuously search for that. On the other hand, the second reason is closer linked to the causes resource wealth has on ethnic and regional conflicts. In the case that mineral wealth lies within the boundaries of ethnic or religious minorities then tension can rise and competition for these riches can increase.

With that said, high oil rents are major players in the struggling political and social development of these regions. But that alone doesn’t answer many questions. Having such availability to a resource like oil leads to issues with taxation and a divide between the state and its citizens. RRLP countries have higher state capacities while RRLA countries have lower state capacities. Because RRLP countries have less citizens the money can be used more amongst society and invested back into the state. Whereas, RRLA countries face having a larger population meaning they must focus more on coercive measures which are very expensive meaning the allocation of money is much different. Militarization of governments is one of the methods of repression/coercion. These repressive measures often increase due to regional discourse like with the example of resources being in areas of an ethnic or religious minority group.

Lisa Anderson’s 2006 article highlights prominent issues which have led regions across the Middle East and North Africa to struggle in democratizing. Anderson argues that answering why such phenomena occurs stems from democratization being an “American disciplinary and policy preoccupation, not from regional political dynamics.”. Therefore, major political forces have been neglected by political scientists and their theories of democratization are superficial at best.

Anderson argues that American political scientists have asked the wrong questions at the wrong time. Questions pertaining to Islamist movements and failures to democratize have left analysts with very little information because democratic political participation is low in the region. Often, research can be inaccurate and data can be incorrectly recorded. Additionally, Anderson perceives that democracy is not desirable within MENA because it’s simply an American ideology pushed upon these regions and it isn’t a structure which comes natural to their society. And she also states that American political scientists continue to lack a historical perspective on the region in efforts to fully grasp why democracy has continued to fail. They’ve concluded that because democracy was perceived one way in certain regions like Latin America, then it must also fit for MENA. This as concluded by Anderson isn’t the case. In fact, when it comes to understanding MENA, it must be understood as its own entity therefore fully understanding its history and complex past.

In order to avoid or compensate for these problems it’s important to understand the region itself not through the lens of other regions like Latin America because MENA has its own history and to fully grasp the issues they now face, history must not be avoided. Additionally, democratization is a Western ideology, far from perfect, and our understanding of this region must not be skewed by our Western perceptions. We must not see democratization as something that’s needed because it’s ‘perfect’. But instead this should serve as a basis to create questions which pertain to why democratization doesn’t work and possibly what may work instead.

The 2011 uprising forged the understanding that citizens within these regions aren’t fighting against democracy. The issues aren’t rooted with individuals wanting to keep it out but instead overarching factors such as authoritarianism which haven’t allowed for democracy to flourish. Therefore, this has created new questions and a new perception by which analysts must consider the region in questioning why democracy hasn’t succeeded.

• Archives

  • December 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023

• Categories

  • Uncategorized