From what we have studied in class this semester there are many different examples of what the class could focus on. However I think that a mix of studying regime types and the studying of resource endowments are the most important. Historical factors are important but they are not likely to influence the region completely as many of these states are young and have similar interactions with European powers over their histories.
This region is very interesting due to the high levels of authoritarianism regardless of the regime type across the region. The people of many of these states, regardless of a presidential system, monarchy, parliamentary system, etc they all seem to have a higher level of oppression from the ruling party. As well as the accumulation of resource wealth does not seem to change the level of authoritarianism within the region either, due to the fact that among the poorest and wealthiest states both have multiple cases of oppression among their regimes.
In Weeden’s study of Syria it is much more likely that we will see much better examples of how authoritarianism works within that single country because of the fact that it is so zoomed in on one single entity instead of a whole region. And while I think that studying the region as a whole is important for comparison reasons because the whole region itself is exceptional when it comes to the level of authoritarianism, wealth, and other factors that make it unlike any other region in the world. I think that tools for studying this region that are the most important however are looking at states on an individual level because it is more in depth and focuses on the more specific and state specific causes and effects of authoritarianism in a state. When a study looks at the region as a whole, it does not come to the same detailed conclusion of the states because it is a much more broad lens.
Overall though I think that is important to know that there is not one thing that will make it clear why a state has a staunch authoritarian regime, because as we have seen there is no clear link between regime type and how authoritarian the state is. Even in the state of Tunisia which we said was the best hope for true transition towards a functioning democracy has started to slip backwards towards a more oppressive state. There are many different regime types within the region as well, from presidential republics to parliamentary republics and they are all in similar situations regarding the authoritarian nature of the regime.
The same thing is true when it comes to the resource endowment, while the accumulation of wealth by the regime seems like something that would definitely lead to an oppressive and authoritarian state. However, among the poorest states which do not have the same level of resource wealth there is still mostly authoritarian regimes that lead the countries. Therefore I think that each state has its own reasoning why it is currently an authoritarian state, usually a mix of coercion, legitimacy, and fear of the people who live in the states. For a state like the UAE there is the coercion of the regime that gives so much to its people, but also the legitimacy that they have given the citizens what they have now so why change things. For Iran there is less coercion except for the religious importance of the Ayatollah, but also the fear of the regime in general which has cracked down on so much of its citizen’s previous attempts at change.
So while looking at all of these tools is important one must be careful to look at the state as a whole and realize that there is no one tool that will give the reasoning for the why a state is authoritarian.
Leave a Reply