Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

The Differences Between Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World, Essays (university) of History of Middle East

The differences between liberalization and democratization in the arab world, arguing that while liberalization has occurred in various forms since the 1970s, it has not led to systemic political transition or democratization. The author explains that arab regimes have employed political liberalization as a strategy for survival, but that the process does not imply the introduction of contestation for effective governing power.

What you will learn

  • Why have Arab regimes employed political liberalization as a strategy for survival?
  • What is the difference between political liberalization and democratization?
  • Can political liberalization lead to democratization in the Arab world?

Typology: Essays (university)

2019/2020

Uploaded on 05/12/2020

adelia_khairutdinova
adelia_khairutdinova 🇹🇷

5 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
5.How does liberalization different from democratization?
Today there is no such thing as democracy or democratization in the Arab
world.Authoritarian rulers (among them the Arab ones) possess a structural advantage over
their democratic counterparts in maintaining power since they do not have to put power at
stake in regular competitive elections. Instead, the specific type of nondemocratic rule still
dominating in the Arab world is (neo-) patrimonialism, in which political power rests
primarily on co-optation. However, political change has occurred in most Arab countries and
in a variety of ways.
Arab regimes’ experiments with political liberalization have been a major focus of scholarly
attention since the early 1990s: multiparty elections, fewer restrictions on the media, a higher
level of individual freedoms, and the proliferation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
have all contributed to the impression of a more liberal Middle East. However, political
liberalization was not a new phenomenon when it occurred in the early 1990s. Bahrain, for
instance, had initiated parliamentary experiments between 1971 and 1975. More prominently,
Anwar Sadat’s infitah policies in Egypt led not only to an economic, but also to a political,
opening. Political liberalization, thus, existed well before the current “wave of transitology,”
with its focus on democratization through liberalization.Political liberalization and
deliberalization are successfully employed by Arab regimes as strategies for political
survival. Their alternating use is ultimately a function of each individual country’s political
situation at a given moment in time, that is, its given constraints and opportunities.Political
liberalization entails a widening public sphere and a greater, but not irreversible, degree of
basic freedoms. It does not imply the introduction of contestation for positions of effective
governing power.
The common denominator of liberalization and its opposite is that systemic political
transition has not occurred in a single case. This is not to say that regimes do not change or
that changes beyond the transition level would not matter. But to examine such subsystemic
regime change solely with respect to the level of political liberties leaves us in a
democratization trap. In addition, while liberalization does not necessarily lead to
democratization, it still remains difficult to convince observers that “examining political
liberalization is not an instrument for finding out whether regime change is systemic or
non-systemic, let alone an instrument for tracing democratization”. However,
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download The Differences Between Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World and more Essays (university) History of Middle East in PDF only on Docsity!

5.How does liberalization different from democratization?

Today there is no such thing as democracy or democratization in the Arab world.Authoritarian rulers (among them the Arab ones) possess a structural advantage over their democratic counterparts in maintaining power since they do not have to put power at stake in regular competitive elections. Instead, the specific type of nondemocratic rule still dominating in the Arab world is (neo-) patrimonialism, in which political power rests primarily on co-optation. However, political change has occurred in most Arab countries and in a variety of ways. Arab regimes’ experiments with political liberalization have been a major focus of scholarly attention since the early 1990s: multiparty elections, fewer restrictions on the media, a higher level of individual freedoms, and the proliferation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have all contributed to the impression of a more liberal Middle East. However, political liberalization was not a new phenomenon when it occurred in the early 1990s. Bahrain, for instance, had initiated parliamentary experiments between 1971 and 1975. More prominently, Anwar Sadat’s infitah policies in Egypt led not only to an economic, but also to a political, opening. Political liberalization, thus, existed well before the current “wave of transitology,” with its focus on democratization through liberalization.Political liberalization and deliberalization are successfully employed by Arab regimes as strategies for political survival. Their alternating use is ultimately a function of each individual country’s political situation at a given moment in time, that is, its given constraints and opportunities.Political liberalization entails a widening public sphere and a greater, but not irreversible, degree of basic freedoms. It does not imply the introduction of contestation for positions of effective governing power. The common denominator of liberalization and its opposite is that systemic political transition has not occurred in a single case. This is not to say that regimes do not change or that changes beyond the transition level would not matter. But to examine such subsystemic regime change solely with respect to the level of political liberties leaves us in a democratization trap. In addition, while liberalization does not necessarily lead to democratization, it still remains difficult to convince observers that “examining political liberalization is not an instrument for finding out whether regime change is systemic or non-systemic, let alone an instrument for tracing democratization”. However,

democratization is a process with a clear end result (in contrast to liberalization). In the course of the past decade, absolutely nothing has indicated the existence of such processes in the Arab Middle East. To speak of a "failure of democracy" is therefore a profound misconception of the working mechanisms of Arab politics and state-society relations. From our point of view, successful democratization would, rather, be the "failure of authoritarianism" - a failure that has been thoroughly avoided by Arab regimes. Recent developments in other world regions confirm two aspects. First, the Arab world is not located on "another planet"; developments elsewhere, too, demonstrate the resilience of nondemocratic governance even when regime change has occurred.