Over the past two decades, the Middle East has witnessed a "transition" away from-and then back toward-authoritarianism. This dynamic began with tactical political openings whose goal was to sustain rather than transform autocracies. Enticed by the prospect of change, an amalgam of political forces-Islamists, leftists, secular liberals, NGO activists, women's organizations, and others-sought to imbue the political process with new meanings and opportunities, hoping that the "inherently unstable" equilibrium of dictablandas would give way to a new equilibrium of competitive democracy. 1 It is now clear, both within and far beyond the Middle East, that liberalized autocracy has proven far more durable than once imagined. 2 The trademark mixture of guided pluralism, controlled elections, and selective repression in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and Kuwait is not just a "survival strategy" adopted by authoritarian regimes, but rather a type of political system whose institutions, rules, and logic defy any linear model of democratization. 3 And while several of the authors who write about the Middle East in this issue of the Journal of Democracy argue that political liberalization is moving forward, Jillian Schwedler's essay on Yemen and Jason Brownlee's article on Egypt-as well as the recent experience of Jordan-suggest that in fact deliberalization may be underway.Perhaps these states will join the ranks of Bashar Assad's Syria, where the door was opened a crack and then quickly closed, and countries such as Iraq, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia, where the rulers have never Daniel Brumberg is associate professor of government at Georgetown University and a visiting scholar during the
