Democratization in the Arab World, Research Paper Example

In the 20^th century, dozens of European and non-European countries were given an opportunity and successfully used their chance for a profound paradigm shift. In the context of the current democratization changes, the modernization theory of democratization and the transition paradigm came out to represent the two major trends in the current state of political knowledge. Different from each other, these two theories, nevertheless, claim to serve the basic elements of a profound political analysis in the Arab world. Present day Arab countries present a serious political challenge to everyone, who wants to assess the degree of their democratization and their chances to become truly democratic. The modernization theory of democratization and the transition paradigm evaluate the two different aspects of one democratization process and can successfully work to assess the extent, to which the Arab countries are still authoritarian, to identify the stage of democratization the Arab countries are currently at, as well as to discuss the major reasons of no progress toward continuous democratic consolidation in the Middle East.

As more and more countries strive to become democratic and view democracy as the definitive feature of their political success, the main issue is in what democratization is and how it can be achieved. The modernization theory of democratization and the transition paradigm offer the two different views on the problem. It would be fair to assume that they represent the two different aspects of one and the same democratization paradigm. The difference between these elements is not only in that the modernization theory relies on the economic development and the transition paradigm is about political, social, and institutional changes. Rather, modernization and transition exemplify a subtle border between true democratization and cosmetic changes, to which authoritarian rulers apply whenever they seek to preserve their political dominance. It would be fair to assume that neither of the two theoretical frameworks has any predictive value regarding democratization in the Arab world, and they equally contribute to the current understanding of the democratic processes in the Middle East.

The truth is in that democratization is often confused with liberalization; the latter is about instituting civil liberties, including the right for autonomous association, and creating institutions and organizations which would process conflicts in an open fashion (Przeworski 61). Liberalization can be fairly regarded as the starting point in the analysis of any democratic changes and it is always the necessary component of the major democratization processes (Ottoway 7), but that liberalization does not necessarily result in continuous democratic consolidation is an obvious fact. Liberalization is different from democratization in the sense that it is always controlled and aims to produce the political outcomes that are highly compatible with the interests and values of the authoritarian apparatus (Przeworski 61). Democratization in its ideal form seeks to instill a high degree of uncertainty on the political outcomes (Przeworski 61). The core of democratization is not in whether the army and the dictator chooses to withdraw into the barracks, but in whether the parties of the democratization process still possess and opportunity to intervene with or to reverse outcomes of the formal democratic process (Przeworski 62). In light of the modernization theory of democratization, and in distinction from the transition paradigm proposed by Przeworski, democratization is possible, whenever the country possesses economic resources necessary to support these democratic endeavors (Przeworski & Limongi). Yet, in no way can economic development suffice to make democratization possible and real. In this way, the transition paradigm adds to the state of knowledge provided by the modernization theory, because for democratization to be effective and real, economic resources should be effectively supplemented with effective institutions, organizational and ideological resources and, if necessary, a reasonable and realistic political compromise (Przeworski 70-71).

The two theoretical paradigms could be of help when assessing the process of democratization in the Arab world. This, according to Przeworski, Przeworski and Limongi, Ottaway, and O’Donnel et al, could happen in three different ways. First, using Przeworski’s transition paradigm, it is possible to evaluate the extent, to which the Arab countries are still authoritarian. Przeworski claims the distinctive feature of any authoritarian regime to be in the degree or capacity political leaders possess to prevent political outcomes that could be highly adverse to their interests (60). Regardless of whether authoritarian regimes in the Arab world exercise the principles of ex ante or ex post control over society (Przeworski 60), either or both could become effective criteria in judging the degree of authoritarian presence in the Middle East. Followed by the analysis of the available economic and organizational resources, as proposed by Przeworski and Limongi, this information could potentially predict each country’s chances to become democratic, as well as the difficulties which a country may encounter on its way to democratic consolidation.

Second, Przeworski’s transition paradigm can serve a successful tool of assessing the stage of democratization every Arab country is currently at. Although Ottoway believes every democratization process to be extremely unique and individual (5), Przeworski provides information that could be used to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of various democratic changes in the Middle East. For example, the extent to which democratic changes and, more importantly, their outcomes are being controlled and redirected by the ruling majority could help to differentiate between liberalization and cosmetic reforms and true democratic consolidation. The degree of political uncertainty with regard to political outcomes could help to assess the state of liberalization/ democratization in the Middle East. Third, both the transition paradigm and the modernization theory of democratization could set the stage for assessing the reasons of no democratic progress in Arab countries.

Again, these are institutions that are of particular importance for assessing the reasons of no democratic progress in the Arab world. According to Przeworski, institutions are the most appropriate solution to the problem of democratization (64), including the Middle East. The causes of the lack or no democratic progress in these countries may lie in the absence of the institutions or their inability to create conditions necessary for the establishment of the institutional compromise (Przeworski 64). Established institutions always make it unlikely for the competitive political forces to influence the political process in ways, which would lead to political outcomes highly adverse for any of the political parties or for the distribution of ideological, organizational, and economic resources (Przeworski 66). The lack or no democratic progress in the Arab world can thus be attributed to the scarce impact which institutions produce on the political process; the lack of belief on the side of protagonists that they have such an impact; and the lack of reasonable political security with regard to the political forces that participate in the democratization process (Przeworski 66).

In their current state, the political forces in the Middle East are being primarily governed by a single executive, except for Lebanon, in which political power is allocated (both constitutionally and politically) among political institutions and religious communities (Ottoway 10). Here, the modernization theory proposed by Przeworski and Limongi could help to assess the availability of economic resources necessary to carry out the major democratization transformations and why available economic resources do not facilitate the process of achieving continuous democratic consolidation. Like Ottoway discusses the relevance and hidden implications of cosmetic political reforms, the extent to which economic reforms in the Middle East are cosmetic or effective could be of help while assessing the reasons of no democratic progress in these countries. Unfortunately, not everything discussed by Przeworski and O’Donnel et al has to do with the discussion of democratization in the Middle East. The cultural specificity and the complex political environment reveal theoretical aspects, the relevance of which becomes obsolete when applied in the context of the Arab democratization and political reforms.

First, neither the modernization theory of democratization nor the transition paradigm can make the process of democratization analysis in the Middle East absolutely transparent: Ottoway is correct when saying that countries democratize in different ways, as a result of different processes, and usually require decades to perceive the benefits of consolidated democracy (5). Moreover, not always do reforms that are considered democratic lead to the anticipated political outcomes, and thus it is particularly difficult to predict their value in the long run. That is why the degree of democratic uncertainty may not hold, when applied in the Arab world, for there is no guarantee that such uncertainty will not result in highly adverse effects for any of the political parties (Przeworski 68). Second, modern theory of democratization treats institutional compromise as an important element of successful democratization, whenever alternative political solutions are associated with an open, possible violent, conflict (Przeworski 70). As such, institutional compromise is considered by Przeworski as less desirable, and is described by O’Donnel et al as the agreement achieved by nondemocratic means (38). This, however, is the problem of conceptualizing democratic processes in the Arab world, for institutional and/ or political compromise in the Middle East is often the starting point in the subsequent gradual movement toward democratic consolidation. In the Middle East, the dominant belief is in that only incumbent leaders have the right to launch a meaningful process of reforms – the Arab world sees governments as the sources of both problems and solutions (Ottoway 7). Such compromise will not only protect the ruling dictatorship from the highly adverse political outcomes but will also secure the Arab population from breaching the existing status quo, which is equally morally reprehensible and materially safe (Ottoway 7). Nevertheless, it is never possible to predict what categories and assumptions will work for the democratization of each particular country; and a times, even the creation of the mildly reformist regimes, as proposed by Ottoway, could pave the way to liberalization and, later, to democratization in the Middle East.

The 20^th century became a landmark in the global process of democratization in the westernized world. The word democracy became a definitive feature of any country’s political success and the key to establishing effective political ties. With increased attention to democratization processes in the world, the modernization theory of democratization and the transition paradigm came to signify the two important theoretical trends in the modern study of democracies. The two theoretical frameworks exemplify a subtle border between true democratic consolidation and cosmetic liberalization. They could successfully work to assess the degree of authoritarianism in the Middle East, the stage of democratization the Arab countries are currently at, and the reasons of no democratic progress. Unfortunately, not everything proposed by Przeworski and O’Donnel et al works in the Middle East, and given the cultural and political specificity of the Arab world, it is difficult to predict what categories and assumptions will work for the benefit of democratization in each particular country.

Works Cited

O’Donnel, G. et al. “Negotiating (and Renegotiating) Pacts.” In Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions About Uncertain Democracies, John Hopkins, 1986, pp. 37-47.

Ottaway, M. Evaluating Middle East Reform: How Do We Know When It Is Significant? Carnegie Endowment for International Piece, 2005.

Przeworski, A. “Democracy as a Contingent Outcome of Conflicts.” In J. Elster and G. Hernes (eds), Constitutionalism and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, pp. 59-80.

Przeworski, A. and F. Limongi. “Modernization: Theories and Facts.”