Dec
11
Reflecting on MENA
December 11, 2023 | | Leave a Comment
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.