Abstract
Despite significant historical and structural differences that separate them, Middle Eastern states have almost uniformly been able to withstand popular pressures for political liberalisation. In each case, the non-democratic state's resilience in relation to society arises out of a different set of dynamics. Exclusionary states, whether relying on their intelligence services (mukhaberat) or directly on the military, have succeeded in depoliticising society through repression and enticing fear of political endeavours among the population. Inclusionary states, having turned streets and neighbourhoods into political theatres, have successfully diverted popular political energies into projects that actually sustain the very basis of the regime. Of the sultanistic states, however, only those with substantial oil wealth and a small population base have been able to effectively placate demands for political participation and accountability. The 'civic myth' monarchies, of which Jordan and Morocco are prime examples, have found it necessary to embark on limited but highly trumpeted processes of political liberalisation, if only as a necessary survival strategy. Elsewhere in the Middle East, however, the structural make-up of various state types make them largely immune to pressures for liberalisation.
Rights
This item is currently unavailable in DigitalGeorgetown due to copyright restrictions by the publisher.
Is Part Of
Third World Quarterly, 19(1).
