I believe the MENA region has been so resistant to democratic reform due to a few noteworthy factors. Because of the low literacy rates, poverty, inequality, and even how remote the region is from Westernized society; the MENA region may not have everything needed to democratize. However; this is hard to take into consideration at times because other nations that have faced extreme poverty, inequality, low literacy rates, have a weak civil society, etc. and their governments are able to democratize. For example, India and Botswana established democracies even though they showed high rates of poverty and other hardships.

I believe Bellin's argument is still relevant; just at times difficult to say if it can be applied everywhere. For instance; some prerequisites listed are potentially necessary to democratize. When more than half of a nation state is illiterate, facing extreme poverty and is not exposed to an education; it is harder for everyday individuals to have a voice and be heard. Without a proper education it may be more difficult to fight off an extremist regime that has every resource potentially needed at their feet. It may be easier to establish a democracy when a nation state is not facing such extreme hardships and had more resources to defeat a regime at their fingertips. However; the counterargument being; if these people have faced enough oppression, will they have more incentive to democratize and take down their regime? 

Egypt faced a regime change, and so did Tunisia. Social media helped out both of these revolutions. When the rebels posted on social media; the governments did nothing to stop them. Bellin would potentially say that Egypt's leader, Mubarak was not strong enough and lacked the robust coercive apparatus essential to defeating the democratic initiatives.