Middle East Centre public lecture

Democracy, Authoritarianism and Regime Change in the Arab World

Professor Lisa Anderson

London School of Economics and Political Science

Wednesday 13 July 2011

Check against delivery

For decades—certainly since the fall of the Berlin wall, and for some among the older of us the wave of
democratization in Latin American and southern Europe in the 1970s—those who study and care about it
(not to say many of those who live there) have been puzzling over what had become known as the
persistence of authoritarianism in the Arab world.

The costs of the remarkable resistance to the global movement to freer, more transparent and more
accountable government in the latter decades of the twentieth century were borne principally by several
generations of citizens whose prospects were thwarted by government policy-making that was opaque,
unresponsive, demeaning, and increasingly aimed at little more than the perpetuation of the regime.

Far less important in the larger scheme of things, but deeply irritating to those of us effected, was the
isolation and marginalization of the region in conventional political science. The study of politics as we
know it today in the United States and Europe reflects its origins in efforts in the late nineteenth century to
understand, promote and protect democratic government. For American political science, where the
study of American politics sets the standard for the science, this has been particularly marked, but even in
Europe since at least the collapse of the Weimar Republic in Germany, the study of politics has been
shaped by the desire to prevent the breakdown of democracy and to ensure its speedy restoration in the
event that it fails. In many respects, the ideological struggle of the Cold War reinforced this democracy-
centric science, since it discouraged taking seriously alternative regime types except in the search for
those flaws and shortcomings in the countries behind the Iron Curtain that would permit democracy to
prevail.

1
As a democrat, I am profoundly sympathetic to the normative biases of political science; as a scientist,
however, I have been deeply frustrated by our inability—nay, unwillingness—to take authoritarianism
seriously. The vast majority of human history has been organized in what we would now call
authoritarian, or at least non-democratic, regimes—tribes, kingships, monarchies, empires, oligarchic city-
states, slave republics. Scattered across the landscape of Egypt alone is evidence of millennia of
remarkably powerful polities whose rulers were not even mere mortals, but the children of gods. Yet,
these are all treated by political science as endearing (or, sometimes, grotesque) anachronisms, the
realm of disciplines like history and anthropology, but not the responsibility of a science of politics.

But now that the Arab world seems to be shrugging off the shackles of anachronistic authoritarianism,
does it even matter?

Yes, in some ways, for those of us who study the region, and for those of us who live there, it may be
even more important than ever.

Shortly before he died several years ago, Charles Tilly published a small book called Democracy (2007),
in which he argued that there are several reasons why we actually do need to know whether a country is
democratic—and, by implication, what else it might be. Democracies behave differently, he said—they
make alliances and break commitments, accept loans, offer credit and declare war in ways different from
other kinds of regimes. So too the quality of life in a democracy is different, and the nature of political
change is distinctive. On all these dimensions—understanding how they behave internationally, how they
evolve and how they treat their own citizens—being able to characterize not just democracies but other,
different kinds of regimes would be enormously valuable to scientists and policymakers alike.

And in fact, the Arab Uprising of 2011 gives us an opportunity not simply to celebrate the first genuine
efforts at democratization in the Arab world—and let me be clear, I think, with some qualifications that will
become clear shortly, these are developments to be welcomed, celebrated, embraced and supported—
but an occasion to examine exactly why and how the varied nature of authoritarian regimes is important
to understanding political change. Common causes—widespread protests—have already produced very
varied effects in government responses, and we should be able to say why. What intervening variables, if
you will, account for these different outcomes?

Permit me a minute or two in the technicalities of typologizing. As it is typically used in political science, a
regime is the set of rules, cultural or social norms that regulate the operation of government and its
interactions with society, including how its incumbents are selected. The government itself is those
incumbents and the policies associated with them. In the United States we call what most Europeans call
the government the administration, as in the “Obama administration.” The US and the UK are democratic
regimes—slightly different versions, let it be said, as the US is a presidential system and the UK
parliamentary—and the current governments are those associated with Barack Obama and David
Cameron.

2
All of the regimes about which we are concerned are devices designed to produce and regulate the
government of a modern state, and for that, we will borrow Max Weber’s definition—a political unit is a
state, “if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the
legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order."

Typically, these three layers of political organization are distinguishable—Morocco, for example, has been
a relatively stable state for centuries, recognized, if sometimes grudgingly, by those who live there for its
monopoly of the legitimate use of force. Its regime is a more or less absolutist monarchy, and its
government is selected by the king, largely these days from an elected parliament. Sometimes the
distinction is less clear. Saudi Arabia, for example, is a state defined—as you can tell by its name—by a
family, and whether it is the family or a separable state that upholds a claim to the legitimate use of force
is not altogether clear. That family provides the principal incumbents of government through the
mechanism of a quasi-monarchical regime.

Most discussions of democracy as a regime type are predicated on the assumption that the state is not a
matter of contention—and in North America and Europe, that is by and large a reasonable assumption.
In the Arab world, however, as the Saudi instance suggests, the state as the organizing principle of
politics is not uncontested—and certainly the states currently arrayed across the map do not necessarily
all enjoy recognition as legitimate sources of law and order. The Syrian Ba’th Party’s continuing rhetorical
attachment to Arab nationalism, the ongoing ambiguity of the status of Palestine (and hence of the states
in which large numbers of Palestinians live), and the refusal of the Libyan ruler to acknowledge his status
as a head of state—he is, as he insists, the leader of a revolution—all illustrate in various ways the
continuing dispute about the state and its representatives in the region.

In 1975, in his magisterial synthesis, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Juan J. Linz attempted to
develop a typology of regimes, and it remains the standard for such efforts to this day. He began his
synthetic essay with the revealing observation that

“one of the easiest ways to define a concept is to say what it is not. To do this obviously assumes
that we know what something else is, so that we can say that our concept is not the same. Here
we shall start from the assumption that we know what democracy is and center our attention on
all the political systems that do not fit our definition of democracy…we shall deal here with
nondemocratic systems.”(2000; 51)

The preoccupation with democracy as the standard and measure—the “norm” of politics—is not difficult to
discern. For Linz, a totalitarian regime was like democracy in that “citizen participation in and active
mobilization for political and collective social tasks are encouraged, demanded, rewarded…” but in other
respects, totalitarianism was the opposite of democracy—it was institutionally and structurally monistic
rather than pluralistic, and, far from the free-wheeling marketplace of ideas that characterized democratic
competition, “there is an exclusive, autonomous… ideology…” (70) In other words, totalitarianism turned

3
democracy on its head, almost mocking the American commitment to what Philippe Schmitter called, in
another influential typology, the “multiple, voluntary, competitive, nonhierarchically ordered and self-
determined categories” of pluralist participation. (Schmitter 1974, 96)

If totalitarianism was democracy’s perverse antithesis, the two regimes shared one important
feature: they were both modern. Not all contemporary regimes were and Linz felt constrained to briefly
acknowledge “traditional authority and personal rulership” in his essay. These were the residue of “the
small and diminishing number of Third World traditional political systems… “ (145)

Having distinguished the distinctly modern from the purely traditional, and shown totalitarianism to
be the modern perversion of democracy, Linz was left with everything else, all the other regimes in the
world that fit into none of these categories, and these he called “authoritarian.” Authoritarianism was, in
fact, a residual category, defined almost completely what was missing: “political systems with limited, not
responsible, political pluralism, without elaborate and guiding ideology… without intensive nor extensive
political mobilization except at some points in the development, and in which a leader or occasionally a
small group exercises power within formally ill-defined limits but actually quite predictable ones.” (159).

The hope that there is something “actually quite predictable” in regimes that were “ill-defined,”
“non-ideological,” “neither intensive nor extensive,” and indeed, even “occasional” led Linz to attempt to
develop a typology of this subset of regimes itself. He distinguished “bureaucratic-military
authoritarianism,” “organic statism,” “postdemocratic” and “postindependence mobilizational
authoritarianism,” “post-totalitarian authoritarianism,” “racial and ethnic ‘democracies,’” and a variety of
other “‘defective’ and ‘pretotalitarian’ political situations and regimes.” This list was less a typology than
an inventory, and in some important respects it was an admission of failure.

It is certainly true that there are common elements in most non-democratic policy settings. In general,
information is scarce. Hence the proliferation of rumor, innuendo, conspiracy theory—there are few ways
to reliably verifying claims.

Since discussion and debate are, typically restricted, the absence of reliable information is not as
noticeable it might be, but the tendency to make outrageous claims is. Political actors who know they will
never be held accountable can say pretty much anything they want: the Muslim Brotherhood can claim
that Islam is the solution; the Egyptian National Democratic Party can call itself democratic; the Leader of
the Libyan revolution can describe himself thusly and characterize his opponents as cockroaches with
little fear of contradiction.

Political action is also restricted to authorized vehicles, groups, institutions. This, combined with the lack
of widely disseminated information, tends to reduce policy debate and amplify corruption, since policy
decisions are shaped by proximity to those with access rather than rational deliberation.

4
And finally, of course, compliance is not born of acquiescence, much less understanding, but of
intimidation and fear, or at least resignation. Even here, though, you see the weapons of the weak. (My
favorite is the ongoing battle over garbage disposal—an uncontroversial policy domain, one might think—
throughout much of the Arab world. The mutual contempt of government and citizen is rarely so
eloquently conveyed as in the casual littering of the citizen and the ineffectual collection of the public
authorities that produces debris-strewn landscapes across the region.)

But for all their similarities, we have made little progress in identifying the crucial features of authoritarian
regimes. There is no systematic, scientific typology, no universally-accepted dimensions upon the world’s
regimes are arrayed—there was only democracy, its perversion, and its absence—and the recent
enthusiasm for “hybrid” regimes merely carries this ambiguity into the twenty-first century (eg Levitsky
and Way), Political science continues to be marked by its pre-Copernican conviction that democracy is
the center of the political universe. Normative commitments have distorted scientific standards.

Perhaps, as is so often the case, we are better served by literature and by Tolstoy’s famous observation
that in fact, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” (Anna
Karenina) Our authoritarian regimes—or at least the bulk of their citizens—may all be unhappy, but in
very different ways and, as I hope to show, exactly how will matter a great deal for the outcome of the
processes of political change we witness today in the Arab world.

Let me now look at this change in more detail.

Starting in mid-December, when the Tunisian vegetable vendor, Mohammad Bouazizi, set himself on fire
in a display of helpless, hopeless frustration at government harassment, almost every country in the Arab
world saw protests. Bouazizi’s act was copied in Algeria, Jordan, Egypt; peaceful demonstrations,
marches and rallies, starting with protests against corruption, police brutality and high food prices,
escalated to calls for changes of policies in Saudi Arabia, Oman, of governments in Jordan, Morocco,
Bahrain and ultimately of regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria—virtually no country was
exempt, and no government unscathed. By mid-June, the governments of Algeria and Saudi Arabia had
announced major infusions of money, including across-the-board wage increases, the cabinets in Jordan
and Morocco had been sacked, the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia had fallen, Libya had slid into civil war,
Yemen was in limbo after the evacuation of the president for medical treatment after he was injured in a
bombing; Syria was confronting a brutal crackdown by its government.

There were certainly common themes in all of them.

Yes, the new information and communications technologies, especially the social media, were important
in fueling and disseminating the protests. In obvious ways, they permitted access to information about

5
the way people live elsewhere in the world, and they permitted organization and communication among
and across protesters within and beyond the borders of each country.

Perhaps more subtly, these technologies also empowered a generation who had become accustomed
years ago to being more tech-savvy, and hence, in modest but significant ways, more knowledgeable and
authoritative, than their parents. The young people of the Arab world are not only a large proportion of
the population, as we know—this is, after all, the “youth bulge”—but their experience of growing up is
qualitatively different from that of their parents. This generational cohort taught themselves and then their
parents to use these technologies and in doing so assumed a kind of responsibility for themselves and
their families that their parents had not borne at their age. Fifteen years ago there were no mobile
phones in Egypt, and as any of you who ever visited the country then, the inadequacy of the telephone
network was a regular staple of the fabled Egyptian humor. Ten years ago, there were a million mobile
phones and today, in a country of 85 million people, there are 65 million mobile phones. It is, of course,
the youth of the country who grew up with this technology, and who taught their parents how it worked.
Their impatience and frustration at being unable to deploy the information they can access, the
knowledge they have acquired, and the responsibility they have shouldered goes a long way to explain
the millions of young people who continue to militate for more open, transparent and accountable
government.

This is reflected in another common theme. Although in many places, economic grievances played
an important role in the early mobilizations, by and large these were liberal, participatory, deliberative
revolts… almost reminiscent of the “liberal, democratic revolutions” of nineteenth century Europe. That is,
they are about demands for citizenship. The nearly universally complacent, unresponsive and often
contemptuous policies and positions of the governments produced a nearly universal response: demands
for effective citizenship, personal agency and government accountability. Hence the remarkable accent
on dignity.

And in this many of the aspiring citizens surprised even themselves: the community watches that sprang
up in the wake of the still mysterious but, as it turned out, very valuable and instructive withdrawal of the
police in Egypt not only demonstrated that Egypt was not on the brink of chaos, as the government had
argued, but that ordinary citizens across the country—not just the protestors in Tahrir Square, Suez and
Alexandria—would be able to take responsibility for, and indeed wanted to take control of, their own
neighborhood, and by extension, their own country. This desire to participate, to be useful and productive
members of society, was apparent throughout the country, in the young men who staffed the overnight
community watch committees and manned the spontaneous roadblocks set up to protect residents from
prisoners released when the police vanished. For the first time, neighbors of all social classes came out
of their politically imposed isolation and got to know each other, and the young people at the barricades
enjoyed the acknowledgement, respect and gratitude of those they protected. This experience of new

6
networks of trust marks a qualitative and permanent change in the conception and experience of
citizenship on the part of many ordinary Egyptians, and it is not unique to Egypt.

So, if there were common elements—elements, it may be apparent, which I find cause for great optimism
about the outcome of these movements in many places—there have been very different trajectories and,
already, very different outcomes in the “Arab Uprisings.” Why?

Here we return to my “unhappy families” of authoritarianism. Although they are all unhappy in their own
way, there are patterns. Two, possibly three, characteristics seem to bode well for regime survival.

1. Governments that control large revenue streams that are independent of local labor are able to
diffuse or control opposition. That is, governments in rentier states, such as the large oil and gas
exporting countries of the region, may distribute resources so as to both bolster acquiescence
and strengthen coercion, thereby surviving political protest. Where there is no taxation,
enhanced distribution appears to divert calls for greater political representation. This was the
approach for regimes as otherwise diverse as Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Oman. Obviously,
however, Libya’s counter-example, suggests this cannot be the only factor.
2. Timing is important, and quick decisive responses to protestors’ demands enhanced the prospect
for regime survival. One of the striking features if events in Tunisia, Egypt Yemen and Libya was
how slowly and maladroitly the rulers responded to the initial protests. Had they made the
concessions they eventually made even a week or so earlier, all three of these presidents would
probably still be in office, and Qaddafi would not be under siege in Tripoli. The relative alacrity of
the responses of the kings of Jordan, Morocco and Oman in sacking their cabinets and promising
further reforms seemed to stave off, and possibly diffuse altogether, more serious calls for the
downfall of the regime.
3. Monarchy may be a useful device by which rulers can distance themselves from the failings of
their policies, salvaging the regime by dismissing the government. This hypothesis is widely cited
to explain the ability of the kings of Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Oman to weather protests
that seems to have capsized presidents elsewhere, although the first two factors—the availability
of resources to the governments and the agility of the ruler--confound this argument to some
extent, as Algeria suggests.

But what of those regimes that fell, or seem to be collapsing? We have also to account for the relative
ease with which the Egyptians and Tunisians were able to slip out from under their governments to begin
building new regimes, while the Libyans and Yemenis seem to be fighting long and as yet inconclusive
civil wars, and the Syria’s citizens face a brutal onslaught from their own rulers.

This leads us to another set of hypotheses, which link the regime not simply to his revenues and rulers
but with the state over which it presides.

7
 4. In countries where affiliation to the state is widespread and clear cut, discarding the regime is
relatively unthreatening—no Egyptian or Tunisian worries that his passport will devalued or his
right to live in his country will be challenged should the president resign and the constitution be
rewritten.
5. In countries where the state is weak—where it does not enjoy a monopoly on violence or where
the legitimacy of that monopoly is widely contested—regime change entails state collapse. In
Libya, one of the few features of life all Libyans share is their passport, and it displays the name
of a country—the Socialist Libyan Arab People’s Jamahiriyyah—to which very few feel any affinity
or loyalty. Thus, the breakdown of the regime has triggered a collapse of the state apparatus,
which in turn provoked political opportunism and alliance-building that may or may not be
sustainable. Similarly, in Yemen, where the authority of tribal leaders routinely trumps that of the
putative central government, the fall of the regime removes the device by which the tribes had
negotiated their relations.
6. In countries where the project of the regime is state-building, the identity of the regime is so
closely tied to that of the state itself that efforts to dislodge the regime are interpreted as a
challenge to the state itself. Here the regime and its allies are better equipped than their weak
state counterparts; they have built at least some of the elements of a modern state—a strong
standing army, for example, and a public bureaucracy. Unlike the regimes in strong states,
however, where the militaries are loyal not to the regime but the state itself, these state-building
regimes have more resources and their supporters have more to lose should the regime fall and
the state building project be reversed. Hence, they are likely to be quite brutal in suppressing
opposition—as we see in Syria (and, I would argue, we saw in Algeria in the 1990s).

So, the nature of the authoritarian regime does matter as we try to understand, explain or perhaps even
predict what happens in regime change.

Authoritarian regimes, in their relatively low premium on institutions for consultation and deliberation,
amplify the importance of the ruler, and remind us that the distribution of political agility and skill—on the
part of rulers particularly, as they select their trusted advisors and develop a rhythm of decision-making,
but also in their advisors and opponents as well--is an important component of political change.

Authoritarian regimes dispose of different kinds of revenue bases, and these can be crucial in determining
their ability to respond to popular demands.

Authoritarian regimes have different legitimacy formulae, and rulers who can distance themselves from
their governments—as is often the case of kings—may have opportunities to respond to popular
demands for change that permit regime survival.

Authoritarian regimes may reflect, and obscure, very different kinds of states. Strong states permit
regime change to take place relatively peacefully and efficiently.

8
Weak states collapse as their regimes fall.

Threats to regimes in states-in-formation may pose existential threats to governments with relatively high
levels of control over military resources, and hence provoke particularly brutal responses.

What does this all mean for the Arab Uprisings of 2011? There is ample reason for great optimism in
Egypt and Tunisia. Strong states, populations with robust identities as citizens, and increasingly
experienced and agile political actors bode well for a successful—if difficult—regime change and the
building of sustainable institutions of more open, transparent and accountable government. The amplified
importance of individual skill in circumstances of weak institutions does heighten the contingent quality of
some of the specific outcomes: the skills of the members of the government, the military leadership, the
protest organizers and public intellectuals will shape some of the process, including its speed and its
institutional results. Nonetheless, these are transitions that have every reason to work, and they will be
managed domestically.

For the countries facing state collapse, particularly Libya, the longer the stalemated civil wars go on, the
more difficult reconstruction becomes, as non-state identities are forged and strengthened in battle, while
civic relationships are suspended and eroded in wartime. Tribal and regional networks shift and shrink,
political opportunism is reinforced as a survival strategy, and mistrust grows, not only between
government supporters and opponents but among and within the general population. At the end of the
war, however it ends, the rebuilding of the state apparatus, and the construction of a regime that can take
responsibility for its functioning, will very likely require international assistance—and its recipients are
likely to mistrust and resent offers of such assistance.

For the regimes that are constructing states—and this includes not only Syria, but also Algeria and Iraq,
which both saw ample violence in the last twenty years and hence may not be in a position to be quite as
draconian today—the international community will be confronted far more starkly that they have in Libya
with the challenge of taking seriously their rhetorical commitment to a “responsibility to protect”
populations at risk from their own governments.

So, as Charles Tilly reminded us, there are good reasons to think that the nature of the regime shapes
how states operate internationally, what the quality of life in the polity is like and how political change
takes place. On all these dimensions—understanding how they behave internationally, how they treat
their own citizens, and how they evolve—understanding how the Arab Uprisings will evolve requires that
we take authoritarianism seriously.