Authoritarianism is a form of political leadership characterized by centralized governance where challengers excluded, independence and democracy undermined. Here, the rule of man is superior to the rule of law where the officials hold unregulated exercise of political power. The middle east region has some of the world’s most authoritarian rulers, whose their continued hold on power calls into question the continued quest for democracy.
Democracy wave. Between the 1950s and 1990s, a democratic wave swept across the third world and developing countries. This wave bypassed the middle east countries, only in turkey and Lebanon was an authoritarian era followed by contested elections that, despite constraints, resulted in a circulation of elites. Elsewhere in the region the fear of political liberalization led to democracy stagnation and hence, no authoritarian executive has ever been removed from office through competitive elections. The middle east can be distinguished from China, the most populous authoritarian country by its absence of a case of successful democratization (Posusney 2005).
Economic success. The economic success in middle east countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, citizens are satisfied with living standards and economic growth hence they do not feel any urge to elect new leaders for the purpose of economic growth. Rapid change is always a result of an ambition to keep up with the rest thus in the middle east they are always developing constantly.
The success of middle east countries has also forced western countries to liase with them and give them political support in exchange for good business relations between themselves.
Islamic religion. Authoritarianism is broadly linked to the Islamic religions which is dominant in all middle eastern countries. The religion contains incompatibilities between Islam and democratic values. In the early days of the Arab empire spiritual and political leadership was accepted by all. It is believed that the Islamic religion was written to explain the characteristics of Mohamed hence, leaders should use religion to govern and no one should challenge the governance. Efforts have been made to test the association between authoritarian governance and Islam producing conflicting results. An analysis by (Fish 2002), showed that Islam is the causes of high levels of gender discrimination where men have more privileges than women in every situation and, that women should be punished for any mistake. However, using similar data (Stepan and Robertson 2003), showed that economic development in middle eastern countries caused slow democracy advanced. The opposition can not also risk putting the islam religion under scrutiny by proposing rapid islam rule changes to facilitate democracy.
Taxation. Many middle eastern countries derive an enormous income from oil exports; their neighbours rely on labour migration, direct assistance from these countries and earnings. This meaning that the middle eastern countries do not tax their citizen heavily to get revenue for the economic development. Hence, this enables the middle eastern countries citizens save from their incomes and live a comfortable life. Western countries experienced a change in governance through election due to the tax impact and burden suffered by their citizen. However, the “no development without taxation” debate was challenged by john Waterbury, who says that the taxation system in the middle eastern countries does not differ with developing countries (Waterbury 1994).
Structured institutions. In the middle east, countries institutions are structured according to political interest and their sharing of power with other institutions i.e. the relations among various branches of the government. Other groups like trade unions too are structured the same way and no independence is given to them (steinmo, thelen and longstreth, 1992). Non-economic associations such as international and domestically based human rights and environmental groups are also considered under this rubric. Institutions are treated as the backdrop against which the crucial decisions are made and implemented on the citizens. The incumbent rulers manipulate these institution for their interest in process such as elections, party politics, court rulings on democratic issues and human right investigations.
Political elections and parties. In middle eastern countries that had a single and dominant political party at the time of independence, one-party states resulted where the elite people effectively and quickly built authoritarian regimes because they faced no competition and because single parties are the perfect political tools. Where single parties are involved the two aspects of party systems: degree of polarization and mobilization do not come into play. In turkey and Lebanon competitive party politics took firm root than elsewhere in the region. In Egypt and Jordan rulers designed electoral rules that ensured loyalist legislatives. In most cases, elites manipulate the election outcome by choosing themselves as the winners. In Jordan results are also manipulated through district apportionment where rules do not determine the winner but rather those political parties that will compete. A lack of democracy in middle eastern countries strengthens authoritarianism and contributes to their political parties ineffectiveness.
Government agencies. Security agencies and the military are part of the country, but each country varies from others on the way they use these agencies.
In most middle east countries, their agencies do not have a great sense of national purpose and hence, are used by governments to help bring order in times of political crisis. In Syria (1982) and Iraq (1991) studies show that in moments of political crisis, military interference lead to breakdown of authoritarianism. It is important to note that the distribution of powers among the branches of government is different. Where the legislature’s powers are limited, the leaders are less likely to resort to electoral manipulation or to suspension of the parliament.
Ruling elites. The ruling elites in the middle east are not willing to surrender power. They use government capacity and resources to suppress opposition. Government resources include: tax payers money is used to finance the cost of suppressing opposition movements. Government agencies are used also to enforce suppression on the opposition by all means possible. Manipulation of election results is a big tool for the elite. The ruling elite also manipulate law and use it blackmail the opposition from mobilization. If the opposition want free and fair elections, they need to put a lot of money into mobilization which is limited to them.
The role of human agency. Human agency is the ability of a person to make decisions and implement them on the concerned parties. The role of human agency has played major roles in democracy where the rulers choose to participate in free and fair competitive elections. It has also lead to authoritarianism where the elite rulers have chosen to suppress opposition and make policies that will guarantee them absolute power. This role has also been a guideline to reformists and soft-liners, for example, a government agency will not plot a military coup or enact reforms that might put the Islamic religion under scrutiny and question.
Ingredients for democracy are free and fair elections, free contribution of crucial decisions by the involved parties and good implementation of the decisions without force.
International interference. Political decisions made by international unions or countries can play a big role is the breakdown of authoritarianism but also contributed to keeping the elites in power for certain interests. They include election monitoring, funding local advocacy agencies and political support to local rulers. Most middle east countries have oil and terrorism hence, others countries have to support authoritarianism regimes to protect and ensure supply of affordable oil to their countries. Their support comes in the form of no international constraints and no foreign military aid is given to countries seeking to overthrow the authoritarianism rulers.
Conclusion
Strong mobilization against authoritarianism regimes are infrequent and until now have been readily suppressed in any event of unfolding. Legislative elections are allowed, but they are manipulated to suit the elites results and the elected parliaments have limited legislation powers. All causes discussed in this essay and with the current events happening in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya leave little cause for optimism that authoritarian countries in the middle east will undergo transitions to democracy in the near future. With opposition parties constrained and typically non-democratic themselves and weak institutions that serve regime challengers; political reforms will be attained through other channels of communication. Due to no history of democracy in the middle east, studies have not yet found solutions for eradicating authoritarianism. Technology is the only promising method of breaking down authoritarianism and is slowly embraced in the middle east.
REFERENCES
· Marsha P,(2005) “the middle east’s democracy deficit in comparative perspective,” marsha pripstein posusney and michele penner angrist(eds.), Authoritarianism in the middle east.pp. 1-18.
· Jason B,(2005) “political crisis and restabilization: Iraq, Libya, Syria and Tunisia,” marsha pripstein posusney and michelle penner angrist(eds.), Authoritarianism in the middle east, pp. 43-62.
· Michael H,(2005) “no representation without taxation? Rents, development and democracy,” comparative politics 37(3), pp. 297-317.
· Steven M,(2002) “islam and authoritarianism,” world politics 55 , pp.4-37.
· Alfred. S and Graeme. R,(2003) “an ‘arab’ more than ‘muslim’ electoral gap,” journal of democracy 14:3, 30-44.
