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
They tend to make alliances with other democracies like themselves but those states are too weak. However, when they choose to work with those whose opinions who differ from their own meaning oligarchies, then they most often turn on them as did
The Collapse of the Autocracy The collapse of the autocracy in February 1917 signified the end
To begin democracy simply is defined as being for the people, but Zakaria explains how western countries governments version of democracy has meant liberal democracy, a system that has the qualities where there is not only fair and free election, but also constitutional limitation of power that the government has, separation of powers and protection of basic rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion and property. Liberal Democracy avoided civil war by providing protection of its citizens and their rights. This form of democracy differs from the historical and theoretical form of democracy. There are many different forms of government besides liberal democracy, in fact, many countries goes through many types of government before becoming a liberal democracy. Countries tend to start of with self-elected ruler that do not protect its people rights, this form of government is an Illiberal Autocracy, then they go on to become a Liberal Autocracy, still self elected but protects its peoples rights, and then finally become Liberal Democracy. Another form of government is illiberal democracy; this government is not free and fair.
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
177-192 Street, P. Capitalism and Democracy "Don't Mix Very Well": Reflections on globalization, February, 2000. Z online Magazine: http://www.iefd.org/articles/capitalism_and_democracy.php UNDP (2004), Arab Human Development Report 2004: Towards Freedom in the Arab World . Pp. 12
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.
...ansformation, before the dust settles, we could see many more countries that have expelled their dictators for a blossoming democracy. Although the path to self-government is harder than it might seem, right now the people of these countries are united behind one cause. However, who knows what will happen once they oust their dictator? Who will come out as the dominating party? Will they share their new power with the rest of the people? Will the people in the Arab world ever get the chance to pursue their dreams? Or are they doomed to continuous power struggles that will deprive the citizens of the liberty they seek.
...or steps down or, the civilians of the country take action and overthrow the government just like many people have done in the past.Just as Malcolm overthrew Macbeth, these tyrants will be overthrown one day as well, and when they are overthrown the lives of millions of people will be improved.
In those countries that have not experienced government upheaval, a common outcome of the Arab Spring has been sustained civil unrest, political instability, and the extension of political and economic concessions by leaders seeking to appease protesters. Many questions could arise as one contemplated those events. One of these questions would be: Why has the Arab Spring produced different results across the Middle East? This paper is a humble attempt to suggest some answers to this sort of these logical questions.
As the Arab Spring enters its second year, major uprisings and revolts have occurred all over the Middle East, pushing for an end to the corrupt autocratic rule and an expansion of civil liberties and political rights. Most recently, images from Syria have emerged, depicting the government’s use of force to suppress the voice of its people. One might ask, “Is this the beginning of a revolution? Is the country on the path to democracy?” To assess this question and examine the future trends in the region, one must look back on the country’s somewhat tumultuous history, the relationship between the citizens and the state, and the political economy.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
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.
power, and also media supervise. And the function to prevent autocracy is the separation of
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.