Democratization in the MENA region has proven to be a long-lasting transition. Although many countries in the region have adopted democracy as their form of government, still many countries remain resistant to democratic reform for many reasons.
Although civil society has proven to be a gateway to democratization in some situations, Bellin claims that it is not entirely effective. Many MENA countries lack strong, credible business associations. Nongovernmental organizations are without strong bases to expand, and most importantly, there is rarely a cohesive civic culture that can be used as a launch pad for democracy. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t go so far as saying that the region’s civil society is “weak and...an ineffective champion of democracy” (Bellin 2005: 22). In Libya, oppressed citizens have spoken out in hopes of destroying the authoritarian regimes under which they were governed. Although its civil society cannot necessarily be considered stable, it has called attention to the need for reform in that region.
Aside from civil society, some problems in the MENA region that prevent democratic reform are economies, poverty rates, and the presence of a Islam. The economy in the MENA countries poses a threat to the expansion of democracy. When the economy lacks stability and is run solely by the state, there is little room for democratic expansion. According to Bellin, “MENA states rank in the bottom half of the UN’s human development index despite the enormous wealth of several MEAN countries”. (Bellin 2005: 23). Concerned with these conditions, many MENA countries put democracy on the back burner. In addition, Islam does not only influence the daily lives of the citizens in the MENA region, it influences the way in which government is run. That being said, Islam is another key factor in why the MENA region is so resistant to democratic reform.
As I observe the Arab Revolts during 2011-2012, I think Bellin’s argument proves satisfactory. Democratization has not yet taken full effect in the MENA region, and has only encountered setbacks with current revolts and uprisings. Although many of these revolts are in response to oppression from autocratic rulers, I don’t necessarily think they provide clear opportunities for democratization.The events that have happened in Syria, for instance, have provoked little to no reform, and the country faces many other problems that resist democratization.
Regarding Tunisia and Egypt, I believe their situations were fairly different. Although both countries were revolting in response to corruption and oppression from authoritarian regimes, they were willing to embrace democratic reform. Both countries wanted human rights reform, economic reform, labor reform, and so forth. In my opinion, Bellin’s argument doesn’t quite fit these situations. Although those regions still remain unstable, reform was created after the revolts, and elections were even held in Egypt for a new president. Although the process of democratization in these regions remains slow, it is not completely resisted by all of the MENA region.
I'm with you on Bellin being too brash in saying that the civil society was "weak and...an ineffective champion of democracy". The claim leaves the academic realm and comes off to the reader as judgmental. Do you think that Bellin believes a civil society that is non-western is weak? or is she taking an honest look and including all countries in her argument? Of course she is well-informed and far more informed than you or I, but has she left room for her own bias in this writing? Those questions are all slightly rhetorical so don't feel any pressure to answer them, but I am really curious if you think she lost the readers interest with the way she worded her argument?
ReplyDelete