The MENA Region and Resistance to Democracy

Like any nation-state around the world that has gone through a political and societal transition before, there is always a very complex reason why it occurred at the time it did, why it took the amount of time it did, and what factors played into the direction of the transformation. The MENA region relates to the complexity of all other nations in why certain movements occur the way they do, but the MENA region also has distinct differences when it comes to certain tribal and ethnic heritage, certain religious conflict, certain authoritarian regimes, certain colonial histories, and certain geographic advantages. I agree with some of the points Bellin argues when she discusses the four elements that stand out in the region in terms of why democracy has not taken hold in a major way. But I also think that some of the "prerequisite" elements are more important than she makes them out to be in terms of their influence on MENA's overall resistance to democracy.

When talking about international support, patrimonial government, and the role of the military in MENA societies, I think Bellin makes strong arguments. Many of the nations in this region are under strong authoritarian control, and when the international community supports them without stipulations about transforming into more democratic governments, the current power-holders aren't going to do anything. Why would they change something that is working just fine for them? They know that their resources are highly valued and that the international community is, to some extent, always going to be in need of what they have. They have major power in that relationship, and as long as the international community (especially Western nations) doesn't impose any type of punishment on these regimes, democracy will not be absorbed. Speaking of the leadership, I think the patrimonial argument is really interesting because whenever a government relies on an elite few that control every major political, social, and economic decision, the desire to repress democratic tendencies becomes stronger. People in power want to keep it, and so they become even more determined to suppress any opposition. The fact that many authoritarian regimes in the region are familial and ethnic (such as the Alawis in Syria or the royal family of Saudi Arabia) makes governmental structure and its relationship to society even more complex. I would like to know more about the 'cost of repression' that Bellin mentions. The role of the military is also important when discussing resistance to democracy, and that goes for any region of the world. Many governments in MENA specifically spend major money on their militaries. It is definitely the priority in a lot of these nations, and when the army is strong, it is hard for common civilians to find strong voices within society. As quoted in the Bellin reading, "most states have armies, but some armies have states".

I think these arguments are very valid, but I also believe that some of the prerequisites that Bellin mentions cannot be underestimated. Poverty and literacy are factors that affect how people go about their everyday lives, and when you live with minimal economic opportunity and low literacy, it affects how you can create a voice for yourself and legitimize your argument. Without opportunity and education, how can one fight these repressive and violent regimes? The regimes want to keep things that way because when you become more educated, you start to question. When you start to question, you start to raise concerns and arguments. Doing this will likely lead to change, and this change can (and probably would) most likely lead to democracy.

I think that Bellin's argument is valid after the Arab uprisings of 2011, as we saw and continue to see how repressive, violent, and dominant patrimonial and military-dominant regimes can be to their people. But it is also safe to say, I think, that MENA does in fact have the potential for democratization because the social outcry was so powerful and resonating that people around the world could see how frustrated and outraged citizens in these societies were. In Libya specifically, we saw how an authoritarian regime can be brutally taken down by its own people, and I think Bellin would say that the coercive capacities of that regime backfired greatly because there's eventually a tipping point where the people say 'no more'. For that example, the tipping point had actual physical results, yet it didn't bring the country any closer to democracy.

In regards to MENA civil societies being unable to progress to democracy, I think that it has the potential to do so. We saw the uproar in the Arab uprisings, and we see the dissatisfaction daily. Democratization has occurred in all types of areas before and with all types of histories, so why not MENA? However, to be able to actually do it, huge changes must be made in terms of dismantling patrimonial authoritarian leadership, decreasing radical theocratic tendencies, progressing education and civil liberties, and decreasing poverty and radicalism. The MENA region doesn't have to be weak in championing democracy if it can just find effective strategies that highlight the will of the majority, not the elite and not the religious fringe.