Democratization in the Arab World? The Trap of Liberalized Autocracy

Abstract

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

Reforming the Family Code in Tunisia and Morocco – the Struggle between Religion, Globalisation and Democracy

“…15 Policy makers in the western world subscribe quite fully to this idea, which is also rhetorically embraced in a number of developing countries where current authoritarian rulers, forced to open up the country's economy, feel the need to continue to justify and legitimise their rule by making references to democratic discourse and practices even though they might not uphold them in reality. 16 This interpretation of what we term liberal globalisation is disputed in many quarters, but it is undeniable that is dominant in policy-making circles. Thus, the architecture of international structures of governance comprises not only formal and empirical studies indicate that the degree of religiosity of ordinary citizens does not influence their preference for democracy, which is considered to be a desirable form of government by the majority of MENA citizens.…”

Liberal outcomes through undemocratic means: the reform of theCode de statut personnelin Morocco

“…Given the central role of the monarchy in Morocco and its significant executive powers, the country cannot be considered a democratic regime, but is at best a 'liberalised autocracy' (Brumberg 2002). The constitution assigns extensive powers to the monarch, who appoints the prime minister, chairs cabinet meetings, and has exclusive appointment powers over crucial ministries such as Interior and Foreign Affairs.…”

Neither Participation nor Revolution: The Strategy of the MoroccanJamiat al-Adl wal-Ihsan

“…In conclusion, Morocco can be defined today as a 'liberalised autocracy' (Brumberg, 2002b), where there is a degree of political pluralism and a high degree of civil society activism, but where ultimate decision-making power remains in the hands of an unaccountable leader and his advisers. In the face of the social and economic crisis that the country faces, the leadership has not been able to provide a While the political programme of the al Adl is far from detailed, it emerges from the writings of the Sheikh and the pronouncements of the leading members that their objective is a radical transformation of the social, economic, political and cultural relationships that currently characterise Morocco.…”