THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AFTER 2000 (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Middle East's Democracy Deficit in Comparative Perspective
Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 2007
The Middle East's democracy deficit is a product of the patterns of political and economic development in the region. It is not because the region is predominantly Islamic or is somehow afflicted by purportedly undemocratic cultures. By itself, culture is not an impediment to transition to democracy as it is subject to influences from the larger polity, especially insofar as the economy and the initiatives of the state are concerned. Instead, transition to democracy is determined by the degree of society's autonomy from the state. This autonomy may result from the empowerment of society as a consequence of economic development, or the state elite's devolution of power to social actors and classes, or, more commonly, a combination of both. Assumptions about the inherently undemocratic nature of cultures such as Islamic and Confucian ones are fundamentally invalid. The key to understanding democratic transitions lies instead in the nature of state-society relations rather ...
Democracy in the Middle East: Towards a More Peculiar Framework of Analysis
2014
For several decades, an already classical controversy has been developed, regarding the compatibility between democracy, in its forms developed by Western political culture (real partitioning of power within the state and independence of institutions, constitutionalism, respect of human rights and liberties, liberty of expression, existence of an active civil society, normal relations between state and society etc.) and capacity of the state and society from the Arab-Muslim World to functionally assume such a model. In the case of latter, a series of characteristics is linked to authoritarian and patriarchal political transitions, to persistence of an economic, political and religious violence which affects the internal stability of society, the important role of army which interferes or even dominates the civilian political environment, fluidity of the national realities and attachments which are challenged by the persistence of certain ethnic, sectarian or regional solidarities, raising issues on the legitimacy of nation-states, projects of Islamist movements that promote their own models of state and society, constructed from a reinterpretation of Islamic tradition, etc. Based on these assumptions, in this paper I intend to review several specific elements that contribute to the regional conditioning of democratization processes, especially in the context of new political and security dynamics, after the Arab Spring, the possibilities of democratization in the Middle East and North Africa, which have experienced tendencies of authoritarianism and especially an ascending fragmentation of the state order and stability, that has emerged as one of the recurrent analysis themes for specialists and decision makers.
The Arab World and The Politics of Democracy
The Middle East has become simultaneously the world's most controversial, crisis-ridden, and yet least-understood region. Taking new perspectives on the area that has undergone the most dramatic changes, the Middle East. Following the Arab Spring that struck the Middle East like wire fire starting from Tunisia then Egypt, followed suit by Libya then
Democracy and authoritarianism in the Arab world. The evolution of a long debate
Rosita Di Peri, 2019
The representation of the Arab world as "exceptional" (because of an absence of democracy) when compared with other regions of the world has permeated political science debates. Falling in line with Orientalist and culturalist theses, such interpretations read the region's political evolution as the result of chaos, randomness and external events and view Arab societies as backward and tribal. Over the decades, these readings have become tightly intertwined with studies emphasizing an inevitable clash of civilizations. In this binary contraposition, the Arab world represents an underdeveloped and violent region, largely because of Islam. The interweaving of development and democracy, which started in modernization theory in the 1950s and 1960s, has become even tighter in the era of globalization: Development, especially through the actions and the buzzwords of international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, increasingly became synonymous with democracy. This paper will unpack the debate by focusing on its key elements. The intent is to show how, even as paradigms and the lexicon change, this debate is still anchored in a stereotypical and primordialist view of the entire region.
Democratization is always an ambidextrous process. On the one hand, it triggers a universalistic set of norms, events, processes and symbols. On the other hand, democratization involves a much more particularistic set of 'realistic' adaptations to the structures and circumstances of individual countries. In analyzing the structures and conjuncture of countries in the Arab World during the past decades, scholars looked at them from the perspective of persistent authoritarianism. In this essay, we exploit democratization theoryas well as its converse by analyzing the universalistic set of events, processes and symbols of democratization elsewhere in the world, and then identifying the particularistic characteristics of timing, location and coincidence that seem likely to affect the political outcome of regime change in the countries affected by recent popular uprisings in Arab World.
Democracy, Authoritarianism and Regime Change in the Arab World
For decades-certainly since the fall of the Berlin wall, and for some among the older of us the wave of democratization in Latin American and southern Europe in the 1970s-those who study and care about it (not to say many of those who live there) have been puzzling over what had become known as the persistence of authoritarianism in the Arab world.