Weak and Strong States

In defining the strength of a state, definitions of both 'weak' and 'strong' can be operationalized in a variety of fashions. Traditional definitions of strong cite military might as a source of power. Thus, meaning the more money spent on defense and the greater a military is in numbers, the stronger a state is. Additional definitions cite economic power, abundance in resources, or military might as sources for strength. However, all definitions of strength stem from one commonality - a varying operationalized definition of power. Lisa Anderson defines strong states as those with stability and "modern administrations...that can accomodate [the] demands [of the people]." Meanwhile, weak states, according to Anderson, are those limited in breadth with low levels of legitimacy that choose to suppress or ignore the demands of its citizens. Thus, these definitions operationalize power by means of both legitimacy and stability. Anderson's definitions of strong and weak states, I believe, can be applied to the states of the MENA region.

Comparatively, the typical MENA state is weak. The typical MENA state is both unstable and able to suppress the demands of its citizens. However, the ability of MENA states to ignore the demands of its citizens showcases an inherent weakness, for strong states have an innate finger on the pulse of the people. Corruption ravages many of middle eastern states, characterizing governments and administrations, but not necessarily the citizens themselves. Thus, the people of MENA are not weak, rather, the administrations are. The Middle East is colored by a rich culture and history spanning over hundreds of years, balancing between weak and strong as time has passed. States are not static, however, they are dynamic, meaning at any moment the status of a state may change.