Walker Kmetz

Jump to Comments

In her 2006 piece “Searching Where the Light Shines: Studying Democratization in the Middle East,” Lisa Anderson looked at the ways that political scientists have tried to understand the Middle East in regards to the development (and lack thereof) of democracy in the region. Her biggest concerns are in relation to the manner the region’s politics is studied, which she describes as “American hopes and dreams” for the region. She says that the ways in which the region’s politics actually work was largely unexplained by western theory, and by consequence, left both the policy community and scholars without the answers of how the region works that they needed.

An aspect of her article that immediately caught my eye was at the beginning of the section “Answering the Question,” where she points out the fact that barely any of the region’s history was, or is, important to political scientists at the time she was writing. The idea that these states should be treated as newly formed areas despite their thousands of years of history is absurd to me, but it makes sense that that is the way they were perceived by academics. Naturally, American political scientists would put an emphasis on more modern states rather than their historical counterparts, but there is also vital history that came before the pre-European colonial era that is important for understanding the region. For example, if the region has had significant influence from several empires and regimes, it does not make sense to immediately think that just because the west was there for a lesser amount of time that the west’s answer of democracy will naturally be what comes about.

I also find her look at what other people had to say about democratization in the region interesting – especially nearly 20 years removed from when it was published. Her quote from Bellin that the number of democracies barely changed between 1972 and 2004 is interesting to see, given the fact that that number still has not significantly increased. However, the quote I find most significant looking back on is from Cook in 2005, where they say that the work of non-state activists within the region is leading to a more optimistic situation for U.S. and western policy interest. He even mentioned the wish of Egyptians to end a state of emergency in the country – five years before the Arab Spring began in the region.

I feel like this recognition that change could (and eventually would) be on the way is important, but I feel like it is also fitting that a quote from Robert Blecher was included that argued that the region became less democratic after the Cold War. Because, while the region certainly had important developments during the Arab Spring, many countries such as Egypt still have their less than average democratic tendencies, even if there may have been a change of leadership or perhaps even regime.