Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Pigeon holes?

For this assignment, we were asked to assess Henry & Springborg's assertion that countries in MENA can be classified as 'praetorian republics,' monarchies, or democracies. The prompt asks specifically whether this classification is the most useful, and I don't have a good answer to that question.

Given the readings by Anderson and Entelis, it seems that these classifications might not be particularly useful. I think that for the purposes of our class, classifying the different regimes in MENA is counterproductive because it encourages generalization and trying to force countries into categories where they don't quite fit. For example, Israel and Iran are both democratic, but how similar are they actually? Although the classification might provide some basic framework or structure to a discussion, I think that terms such as 'democracy' and 'monarchy' have too much baggage; it seems likely that people are likely to draw comparisons whatever democratic country and monarchy they are most familiar with whatever MENA country they have been asked to think about.

That being said, I don't feel comfortable prescribing a system of classification of my own. When I think about trying to devise broad categories, I run into two problems. First, the limited knowledge I have and the discussion in our most recent class make me hyper aware of not trying to make arbitrary generalizations. It's easy to assume that Islam or other cultural factors weigh heavily on the politics of the region as a whole, and more importantly, that important comparisons can be drawn between the states in question based on these cultural and religious commonalities.

Second, I think that classifying the countries without a more substantial understanding of the individual states is counterproductive. My concern is that categorizing something I'm not very familiar with will lead to drawing foregone conclusions and being reluctant to discard the labels, even if they are proven erroneous. I think that it's worthwhile to look at states by themselves before you start categorizing them, simply because categorizing before you understand might as well be completely arbitrary. In theory, understanding should help you make a more informed argument as to a decision to place something in a certain category. That or it will paralyze you, bog you down in details and prevent you from seeing the forest for all the trees.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Anderson

Anderson argues that one of the major problems that faces political scientists in their analysis of the Middle East is a tendency to view the region through the wrong lens. As Western thinkers, we are prone to adhering to a strong tradition of political liberalism. That is to say that we tend to more or less assume that democracy is the end all, be all of political organizations. This is all well and good as long as we are analyzing states populated by other people prone to this assumption. However, this narrative of "democracy=good" breaks down when you start looking at societies that have different political and philosophical traditions.

Although I am not an expert Arab political philosophers, I have a hunch (based on the reading) that there is no direct equivalent to the likes of John Locke et. al. Without a similar tradition, it seems logical to think that democracy might seem a strange and foreign concept in MENA. Also, it is important to consider the difference in language. Whereas most European languages have similar roots and developed next to one another, Arabic and Farsi are descended from different sources and therefore give rise to significant differences in how it is possible to communicate ideas.

As far as our class is concerned, I think that the best way to address this tendency is to make a concerted effort to step away from the assumption that democracy is the best way to go, as well as acknowledge the different academic tradition that has shaped thought in MENA. This is likely to be uncomfortable as the virtue of democracy is something we tend to take for granted, and uprooting the notion of universal suffrage is likely to feel very strange. As Anderson puts it "We may have to search a bit more in the shadows, in the arenas of political life less well illuminated by conventional political science."

(This post refers to the following journal article by Lisa Anderson:
Anderson, Lisa. "Searching Where the Light Shines: Studying Democratization in the
Middle East." Annual Review Political Science9 (2006): 189-214.)