Much of the modern world has transitioned to democratic governments in the past centuries, but the Arab World has lagged behind. Countries in the region generally use one of two systems of autocracy: full autocracies and liberalized autocracies. Full autocracies tolerate no dissent or democratic processes, and tend to severely restrict citizens’ political rights and civil liberties. Liberalized autocracies, on the other hand, tend to grant their citizens more freedoms and a larger role in government. This is not to say, however, that liberalized autocracies are shining examples of democracy. In fact, they are from it. Where full autocracies use force and intimidation to control any dissidents, liberalized autocracies use discreet tactics to …show more content…
As stated earlier, liberalized autocracies are more lax than full autocracies when it comes to political rights and civil liberties. In some cases, they’ll even tolerate protests and large-scale referendums. Most liberalized autocracies in the Arab World tend to have an elected parliament that can be dissolved at any time by an autocrat, usually a king. The parliament, and by extension the citizens, have a say in how the country is run, but the ultimate power lies in the hands of the autocrat. Parliaments pass laws under the pretense of doing right by the people, while in actuality they pass laws that please the regime, with a secondary regard for the people. This system ensures the autocrat maintains ultimate power over the government, while giving the citizens the feeling of democracy. Further, the regime has a number of control methods to use if the parliament begins to express some opposition, ranging from rigging elections to completely dissolving the parliament and converting the country to a full …show more content…
Additionally, the reforms may violate a tenant of the ruling regime’s philosophy, or simply displease the autocrat. This is the stage “Regime is Threatened,” which very quickly transitions into the final stage, “Crackdown.” Using the knowledge gained from the liberalization stage, the regime will target its most powerful opponents in order to prevent a full-blown takeover. These are usually limited to political parties and high-ranking officials, but it may extend to common citizens in extreme cases. That being said, the most common manifestation of the “crackdown” stage is the dissolution of the parliament. At this point, the regime may retract reforms made during the liberalization period. This can be done for a number of reasons, most commonly because they threaten the regime or so the regime can use them as bargaining chips the next time around the cycle during the “Government Loosens Control.” In extreme cases where peaceful control methods like intimidation don’t work, the regime may choose to act violently against its citizens. They usually only resort to this tactic as a last resort, as the goal of a liberalized autocracy is to have the people be content with the
The authoritarian regimes of the Middles cycled through a pattern of anti-western policy until the globalization effects of economics and information demanded reform. As conservative Arab states try to maintain the autocracy they relied on after gaining independence, their citizens, affected by information and education expansion, challenge their resistant governments as typified by Syria’s unwillingness to capitulate. The proliferation of information and education underscored the protest movements of the Arab Spring because citizens’ contempt for their obstinate governments grew to large under economic pressures, as the current situation in Syria demonstrates.
Political systems fluctuate across the world, and can range from democracies to dictatorships. In “What Do We Know About Democratization After 20 Years”, Barbara Geddes explores the changes in democracy over a period of twenty years and the likelihood of countries interchanging between democratic governments and authoritarian regimes. Geddes compares the differences between the three main types of authoritarian regimes, which are single-party, personalist, and military. She also argues that military regimes tend to have shorter life spans than the other main types of authoritarian regimes because the military regimes are more susceptible to crumbling, and are less resilient to overcoming exogenous shocks.
However, though authoritative regimes have the right to exist, it is also considered, now, to be generally immoral; and, combats ideas of personal freedoms and individual rights. Thus, many countries have adopted and manipulated ‘democracy’ in order to reach authoritarian goals. Democracy stands apart from other types of regimes in that it generates freedom, promotes true and fair representation, and encourages self expression. Both communism and authoritarian regimes can become corrupt through the smothering of these individual freedoms. The denial of true representation for the people can stifle socioeconomic goals and development born from invention and innovation. The stigma on authoritarian regimes have become strong enough where currently, countries are self-pronounced democracies with little to no truth behind it.
Democracy and Islam, an article written by Irfan Ahmad1 strives to show that there is a possibility that Islam can move towards democracy. On the other hand, Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical Overview, an article written by Bernard Lewis2 discusses how a democracy is unable to work in Islamic States. In this essay, I will be comparing and contrasting the two articles. Both Bernard and Irfan carry weight in their arguments and have certain strong points, as well as weaknesses. The major difference between the two articles is the variation of the core definition of democracy that the writers have, and their distinct perspectives of the workings of a democracy. In addition, the articles also differ in their chosen format and the authors’ thoughts on the Catholic and Western influence. The fundamental dispute of democracy and Islam are strong in both articles, and they are resolved in a respective manner. Irfan was successful in formulating a more compelling case and was able to maintain better structure; however, I am a firm believer that Islam is a theocratic system and it is not compatible with democracy as a system of governance.
Zhenhua, S., Hui, Z., & Jingkai, H. (2013). “Authoritarianism and Contestation.” Journal of Democracy, 24(1), 26- 40.
Living in America, we are constantly bombarded with rhetoric on “modernizing” other states by “teaching” them how to be democratic--what we judge to be the ultimate form of government. We have done this time and again, most recently in our democratic crusades in the Middle East, particularly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We are baffled that our coerced democracy is not something that sticks as well as we had hoped, while not addressing that democracy is not meant to be something forced upon a people and the process of doing so almost negates the intention. Questioning why democracy is so elusive in the Middle East assumes two things. First, using the word “elusive” implies that there is some inherent value, a
With the development of human society, civilization is incessantly progressive. One aspect of human civilization’s progress is political civilization. Democratic politics can be considered to be the representatives of political civilization. When people refer to the history of human progress, they find that human beings struggle to achieve this great goal and no one can stop the human desire for political freedom. In 2011, one more country took a step towards democracy. Egypt is in the ancient, sacred and conservative Middle East. Egyptians are cheering for their own political aspirations as they overthrew Mubarak’s dictatorship, and are gradually making efforts to establish a democratic and peaceful country.
With rapidly changing values in emerging cultures, and an ever increasing population growth one must question how can democracy cope when some governments are undermining their own policies and human rights are being devalued and overlooked.
Voting often refers to the collective action where the peoples’ preferences, ideologies and wills speak out for themselves. Even in non-democractic, authoritarian regimes, elections do exist and voter turnouts tend to incorporate a large percentage of the population. Even more commonly in authoritarian regimes, candidates are repeated for years and even for decades and the results are often predetermined. Elections in non-democractic regimes exist in different levels; however, they rarely offer opportunities for changing the existing regime. According to Lisa Blaydes, a professor in the Department of Political Science in the University of California, Los Angeles, elections in these non-democractic regimes are essential for several reasons. Egypt, for example, chooses to hold elections due to constant pressure from the United States and global institutions to be more democratic. Furthermore, elections are crucial for the survival of the regime on its own. Furthermore, elections also allow the regime to find out its’ supporters against its’ opponents (Magaloni, 2006.)
In conclusion, the Arab spring might have chained down some groundbreaking rules and allowed more freedom of speech which could be superb. Without doubt it created a huge stamp in history and throughout the whole world but the consequences have generated tremendous losses in all kinds of aspects that have enormously damaged current conditions of each and every country. But to them it really didn’t matter as long as the reward is exactly what they were seeking or fighting for.
This is because democratic governance is expected be based on consensus and respect for the wishes and aspirations of the people. A political system where the government depends on repression as a way of increasing regime strength cannot be described as democratic.
In his book International Politics on the World Stage John T. Rourke (2008) states that governments range from the strict authoritarian at one end of the spectrum to a completely unfettered democracy at the other end (p. 78). His definition of an authoritarian style government is a “political system that allows little or no participation in decision making by individuals and groups outside the upper reaches of the government” (p. G-1). Those of us who live in a country that has a democratic government may find it difficult to understand why people who live in countries with authoritarian governments do not revolt and change their system of government, but in fact a truly democratic system of government is a relatively new concept in the age of man.
After Mubarak Fall, the military started governing the state. They promised that changes would occurs but the only change that did happened was changed of governor which is a small fraction of the picture. In the bigger picture, the regime that Mubarak made was still standing. Those who were able to see the entire picture revolted for the second time a The square demanding change but not everyone was agreeing since they do not see what other see. In the end the rebellion was a failure since this time the regime to action. They took action against their human right by invading The Square with thugs and police. Some were arrested and brought to unknown location to brutally get tortured. Torturing people will not solve any problem instead it will provoke more people. In fall 2011, there was another rebellion happened with fewer people. As we know there were two brotherhoods that kept revolting against the system. The Muslim and the Christians which treated another equally until this rebellion in which leaders of the Muslim brotherhood started negotiating the regime. The other brotherhood kept revolting and lost many people during that event. At some point, they even got teargassed and ran over by tanks. Instead of showing these things to the world, the media only shows the good side of the regime. Not only that but the military promised the citizens that no violence would be used towards them. In this bloodshed, the
Authoritarian regimes are defined, at their core, by having all the power in the hands of one leader or a small elite where rights of citizens are not protected. Other characterisations, according to Headley, including having no rule of law, a lack of independent civil society, ambiguous mechanisms of succession, military control, and populist nationalism (lecture 5). Authoritarianism is categorised into types: dictatorship, one-party rule, military rule, theocracy and hybrid. Liberal democracies are the opposite to authoritarian regimes, with focuses on the education, liberalism and equality of their
The world has been ruled by humans through a form of a government system. Through the history of humankind, we have seen enormous types of institutions. Monarchy is the oldest form of government system in the entire world, and exists today in some parts of the world. For many years, the world has practiced democracy through different types of authoritarian systems. The ancient history systems have formed a footprint for how the government should be established. Every civilized society has a structure of government to keep order over the members of the society. The changes of a regime might seem skeptical but it’s