Monday, March 29, 2010

One party systems etc.

It seems to me that paries play a significant role in non-democratic states in MENA. Although they bear the same name as political parties in Western democracies, and are superficially similar in that they sometimes participate in elections, parties in authoritarian states play a very different role. To borrow some terminology from IR theory, they are primarily interested in maintaining power, rather than serving the best interest of their constituent (if you can call it that, since their electoral decisions apparently have very little impact on the party) populations.

King describes a number of ways in which ruling parties have redirected economic reform to suit their own interests, and there is a plethora of examples of the powers that be using elections as a way of legitimizing their power. In the context of political systems, this tendency is logical because, once again, a ruling elite is ostensibly interested in maintaining their status by denying other people the opportunity to run the country. Moreover, their desire to stay in power is also reinforced by their ability to do so; it seems to me that the chances of lower class citizens manipulating economic reform to their own benefit is rather slim.

The sum of it all is that political parties play an important role in the persistence of authoritarianism in MENA. They have the means and the motive to reconstruct legal systems and manipulate affairs in their respective countries such that they maintain their grasp on power. It is also important to note that parties have played an increasing role in authoritarianism since the outside world began putting greater pressure on non-democratic states to liberalize; in many cases, the ruling class has been quite content to put on a good show and appear democratic by forming parties rather than cabals of military leaders in order to please the West.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Rentierism

I think that rentierism is a useful concept in explaining authoritarianism in MENA. It seems particularly valid to me because it provides a lucid logical framework for explaining the authoritarian tendency in the Middle East without resorting to arguments that fall along the lines of "it's just how they are, those Arabs." It takes into account what makes the region singular without making sweeping assumptions about the people who live there. Whether or not the theory is entirely accurate is another matter entirely, the fact that it provides a theory that can be tested and empirically evaluated means that it is sound, at least as far as its methodology is concerned.

Rentierism is also useful in that it provides a mechanism through which colonial powers exert their influence. It is almost certainly true that colonialism has a significant impact on MENA, however, simply leaving it at that is not a particularly satisfying explanation. Rentierism provides an avenue through which the effects of colonial powers can be explained and quantified by a reasonably empirical method.

That being said, I am skeptical of almost any single factor explanation for anything. It seems somewhat far fetched to assume that an abundance of mineral resources is the only factor that plays a role. Norway (sigh) is a perfect exception to rentierism. Despite having vast mineral resources in the form of North Sea oil, Norway rates as one of the most democratic countries on earth, and has not displayed any authoritarian tendencies for many decades.

I think that rentierism, assuming that it is a problem, can be solved by imposing conditions on the purchase of oil. Although it seems highly unlikely given the appetite for oil, mandating that oil be purchased only from legitimately democratic and transparent states might be a good way to mitigate the lack of representation that the citizens of authoritarian regimes experience. It would also be worthwhile to stipulate where and how oil revenue is spent, however this also seems like a long shot because of how high the demand for oil is; rentier states could easily find other buyers, whereas the buyers would be hard pressed to find other sellers.