Civil Society

What is civil society? What is the status of MENA civil society? What role can it play, if any, in broadening the space for political participation?

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.   

Democracy in MENA?

MENA has been so resistant to democratic reform simply because it is unknown. The majority of countries in MENA have never known democracy. With everyone and everything the unknown can be hard to overcome. Bellin proses a new question: Why hasn't MENA even begun a path to democratization? As stated before, its the unknown. While her question is valid in some way, it also is outdated. While most of MENA has not tried to democratize, Tunisia has. While not 100% successful, they are still on the path towards democracy- and of course there will be some bumps in the road. Tunisia and Egypt, after the Arab Spring, had a regime change. I don't think it is ever accurate to describe a whole region (MENA) as weak. There are some components and some countries that may fit this description, but it is unfair and incorrect to assume, and later state, that all MENA states are "weak and...an ineffective champion of democracy".

Strong vs Weak States

As portrayed by the media, the typical MENA state is Arab, Muslim, and in a state of political unrest. We know that this is not always true, as you cannot lump so many countries together with a few descriptive words.

A "strong" state is typically one where these is no disobedience. It is non-violent, but there can be some disagreements. A "strong" state has a powerful military. It can be any type of government, but it appears to have no future of being overthrown.

A "weak" state is weak in body and mind. They lack organization and military.  A typical "weak" state, again as shown in the media, is in a almost constant state of political turmoil. There appears to always be boycotting, looting, and just disobedience all around.

Youth empowerment and Democracy

There are several reasons that contribute to why MENA has been resistant to political reform. While the countries in Africa and Asia have changed in structure and new countries had formed, the number of countries in MENA have stayed relatively the same.The economy is also quite closely regulated by the state, not allowing much freedom on the part of the individual.Poverty, low literacy rates and a great inequality in class has also contributed in a stagnation of flourishing democracy. There are also not many democratic states around the region geographically that could influence change. Lastly, many leaders in the area try to restrict change through their version of Islam and use religion to justify their motives.
Bellin could not have predicted the drastic change during the Arab Revolts. For one thing, technology had a great part to play in the organization of the masses during that critical time. Secondly, youth empowerment has helped change the dynamic of the nations during the uprising. The youth were optimistic that their demands would be heard and were motivated in order to make it happen. In Tunisia and Egypt, however, she describes that there has been Western support of the authoritarian regimes. This makes the strides to democracy further diminished as the need for change is stifled by the West. Any security concerns the Western leaders may have in the area is decreased by keeping close ties with the authoritarian dictators. This sort of support from the West decreases the ability for the average masses to demand democracy.
It is my personal opinion that the region is completely capable of democracy. Since Bellin's paper was written, many changes had occurred in the MENA region. However, the most notable thing that has an effect is the bravery of young individuals. They are willing to risk incarceration in order to get their message across. This shows the outside world that the people in MENA are ready for change and are making strides in trying to achieve it.

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.

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.