Re: First Question

According to Bellin, MENA has been so resistant to democratic reform not because it lacks the elements traditionally thought to bring democracy, such as civil society and high literacy rates, but because the oppressive governments of the region remain willing to oppress rebellions. She points out that in regions where the oppressive governments lost power, such as Latin American, democracy began to take root. Therefore, she argues that since the oppressive governments of MENA, or coercive institutions as she calls them, haven't lost their willingness to oppress rebellion, MENA has not been able to democratize like Latin America.

She would say that what happened in Egypt validates her argument. In 2011, the movement to overthrow Mubarak succeeded in part because the military allowed the protesters to continue protesting, despite what Mubarak said. She would say that this was an example of the regime loosing its ability to repress the movement, which is what she believes leads to democracy. However, in Tunisia, the regime did not show signs of letting up until Ben Ali fled the country. Therefore, she might not be able to apply her argument to Tunisia in the same way, considering the strong civil society that existed in the face of a government did not display a willingness to stop oppressing.

I think it is somewhat accurate to say that civil society in MENA is a "weak and ineffective champion of democracy." The fact that democracy has not been achieved does not change the fact that there is evidence of strong civil society in places such as Egypt, where the Kefiya movement came together, bridging many different ideologies in order to create a group focused on toppling the regime. However, in most cases, democracy has not been instituted, so civil society may not be "weak," but technically it's not a "champion of democracy" either.