When studying authoritarianism, there are a lot of factors to take into consideration, what we can question is what are the most important to help us analyze this phenomenon? It is better a close view on every specific case or it makes more sense to have a wider thematic study?
Single-detailed specific studies, as Lisa Weeden’s book, are surely sources which allow to know and compare a particular situation of a region to others, but, in order to manage the study of a country, it is necessary to know the differences among the regime types and the historical background to notice the changes to be able to fully understand what are the features of the present circumstances.
Cammett, Diwan, Richards, and Waterbury’s thematic studies give us a broader view and understanding of the regime types, the historical factors, the resource availability, the demography of MENA and these studies are helpful when there is the need to find the similarities and differences, but most of all the relations between the regions. As comparing the various situations it is possible to deeper understand the mode of operation of a certain country, also in a globally context.
Analyzing resource availability and historic events are, on my opinion, the most useful factors when facing the uniqueness of MENA, because both can be considered the basis of the worse issues related to the continuum of authoritarianism in the region.
Leave a Reply