It is very hard to say whether a typical MENA state is strong or weak. Oftentimes, the nations that are traditionally strong, like Saudi Arabia, for instance, have strong militaries that are disconnected from their people. While these nations are often economically prosperous due to oil, they are not necessarily strong in all regards. While these states
may appear to be strong externally, many are just the opposite internally. Many people in MENA states
harbor apathetic or even negative feelings towards their government. The colonial era caused there to be an abundance of unnatural rulers in countries with artificial borders (Owen 40). This in turn has established a precedent of dissatisfaction. So while many MENA nations have strong militaries and have strict rules, that doesn't necessarily mean they are strong. This raises the question of what being strong really means. Does strength lie in how a country is perceived by outsiders or by how it is perceived by its own people? Do only external results matter or does the prosperity and connectivity of the people to the government in regards to strength? There isn't necessarily a correct answer, because it is hard to generalize an entire country as "strong" or "weak". Nothing is black and white. Instead, it is more accurate to say that countries are strong in certain aspects, but also weak in other aspects. It is up to the individual whether that translates into an overall strength or a weakness.
I think the notion of unnatural rulers is only present in some cases. I think in presidential authoritarian republics we see this presented but it is often forgotten that the tribal monarchies that exist in the Gulf and on the Arabian Peninsula are the traditional forms of rule in the region. However, although these countries have more natural governments, their borders are still unnatural, as you mentioned. It would perhaps be interesting to analyze strengths and weaknesses between states in the MENA region with "natural" and "unnatural" governments.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a state can be characterized as "strong" or "weak" based on its ability to resist institutional change by social movements? For example, would it be fair in 2011 to have characterized the government of Syria as "strong" for successfully resisting revolutionaries (for a time)? Would it be fair in 2013 to have characterized the Morsi administration in Egypt as "weak" for being so susceptible to change? If this is the case, what criteria do you think should be established to determine "strength"?
ReplyDeleteI agree that states that are susceptible to change are "weak." But in my opinion a "strong" state doesn't have Arab Spring level protests at all.
Delete