While this may seem like a cop out answer, all the tools including resource endowments, historical factors, regime type, demographic change and more are all important to develop a well-rounded understanding of political dynamics in MENA.
To begin, a constitutional monarchy in the region like Morocco has a system in which there is a coalition-style government but executive authority remains in the hands of the King. We saw consistently how resource endowments gave power to and perpetuated authoritarian regimes through rentierism. GCC countries like the UAE and Qatar can rely on oil revenue and give out “gifts” to their populations in a UBI system as we discussed in our last class to avoid the need for taxation. This leads to a lack of an accountability mechanism between the citizenry and the state. One could argue that as long as citizens are taken care of and not in poverty, they will be less critical of the government and less likely to revolt. Another area of focus should be demographic change. The youth unemployment bulge can be observed across regime types and different economic systems. How these countries respond to overqualified, underemployed youth will determine the viability of their regimes in the coming future. It is also important to consider past colonial history when examining a country’s development path. A country’s access to water and food security could also lead to civil unrest, and perpetuate reliance on external organizations or countries for economic aid.
A detailed case study like Wedeen’s book on Syria demonstrated a different kind of power that a cult of personality could exert over its population as opposed to hard power. Images and propaganda being spread in every shop, taxi, newspaper, and television program led to complicity from the public and controlled their behavior. Whether the people actually believed that President Hafiz was the country’s “best pharmacist” is irrelevant. The regime isolated Syrian’s from each other, and the only way they could unite was through the propaganda and praise of Hafiz.
Cammett, Diwan, Richards, and Waterbury was much more oriented towards hard power and environment-specific concerns like the rentier state theory, demographic change, human capital, and water & food insecurity. Overall, I would argue it had a more analytical focus than Wedeen’s book. While there is no most important factor, one must understand how each factor we covered in our course affects different areas of MENA and the persistence of authoritarian regimes.
Leave a Reply