Coercive Power in the Middle East - Essay Example

History Coercive Power in the Middle East Leadership style is the Middle East is an issue that has drawn a lot of attentionfrom all over the world. Middle East is one of the regions in the world that have had a history of authoritarian leadership for a long time. Most Middle East leaders have dominated over the public by designing a coercive apparatus that suppresses the voice of the public and oppose any internal dissent. However, it is clear that this is altogether a challenge and many countries have come to develop some semblance for legitimacy in the form of a ruling bargain to win the popular populations. At a time of political democracy, Middle East has stood out as the most resistive to reforms and the government has yet to develop democracy to support economic development. This essay focuses on the way countries in Middle East have tried to maintain control over political discourse, how they tried to promote economic development and the way they continue to respond to the popular opposition and demand for change. In addition, it will focus on how countries have been successful in maintaining a ruling bargain. Middle East is one of the regions that have developed robust coercive apparatus to dominate in power. Kamrava (272-273) stated, “regardless of the robustness of its effective coercive apparatus, no state can rule through sheer repression alone, and it must carve out some semblance for legitimacy, not matter how narrow and contrived, with some sectors of the population. In the Middle East, this effort crystallized in the form of state-imposed ruling bargain” Kamrava seems to refer to well-shaped coercive apparatus that many Middle East countries have used to suppress the rights of the people. In authoritarian government, the people submits their rights to a central government, which uses these absolute powers to remain in control while pursuing economic development. The authoritarian government remains in power by opposing political discourse and fighting against reformists. The purpose of such government is to remain in power without necessarily meeting the demands of the nation. In countries such as Iran, the president has always developed mechanisms against any internal dissent. For instance, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has used his political power to win election against the will of the people. His re-election in 2009 was a political manipulation, in spite of the internal dissent raised by the public against his election. This shows the effects of coercive power that authoritarian government uses to suppress the will of the people. Although Middle East countries have shown efforts to develop the country’s economy, it is clear that they have been inefficient due to misdirected priorities. Since the government gives priority to the welfare of the leaders and those close to leadership, they fail to focus on the shaping on the nation (Kamrava 213). Economists have criticized heavy economic spending of most Middle East countries on issues such as security and developing international networks that support their leadership. For instance, in Egypt, the government has spent a lot of money on security leading to bankruptcy of its economy. Egypt spends over $2 billion on security, of which the money is the foreign aid that the government gets for United States. Iran spends over 30 billion that it earns from its government from oil sales to cover for its security framework. Therefore, while such countries have the potential to develop economically, their focus on maintaining the robust coercive apparatus while ignoring social needs such as health. On this note, it has become a great challenge for these countries to develop economically. Successful countries such as Qatar have shifted to democratic governance that puts the needs of the people as a priority. Most states in the Middle East have suppressed any opposition to governance and change in the political structure. Most of the Middle East rulers have not received public election but have maintained power for many years. In Iran, the government has always been resistant to change the constitution, especially the section defining the responsibilities of government and the rights of the people. Consequently, bad leaders have remained within leadership to manipulate the will of the people and to suppress any political activism. Ahmadinejad has remained in power since the year 1979 and has been opposed to activists who have come to define new political structures. He was particularly opposed to the public’s assertion to limit the number of the years that a president should rule a country. In addition, the government in Middle East opposes change by imposing strict laws featuring loyalty and terming those who speak ill of the government as unloyal. This kind of governance underpins the underdevelopment of most Middle East countries (Kamrava 148). Countries such as Such as Iraq that have large oil wells are still within the bracket of developing countries. On this note, the resistance to change in the Middle East countries has resulted to slow growth and development. ‘Ruling Bargain’ is a strategy that most Middle East countries have used to show legitimacy to specific populations within their countries. A ruling bargain is one of the examples of forms of legitimacy that authoritarian government uses to formulate stable governments. In a ruling bargain, the governing body and the people come into an agreement on how to form a stable political structure. As Kamrava (172), it is impossible for any government to rule by mere repression, as they must have some form of legitimacy no matter how narrow this may be. This is the reason why the autocratic governments of the Middle East are being compelled to revise their charters and review the collective ruling bargain. For instance, Kuwait has been forced to revise its charter due to public pressure. Although this does not result to an ideal ruling bargain, it is clear that part of the citizen population benefit from these changes. In Egypt, there has been great public unrest ending in coup due to the government inability to satisfy the ruling bargain. The failure of the government in these countries to establish an efficient bargain is linked to the abuse of leadership power. While the public expects to obtain economic and social benefits after surrendering their power to the government, it is clear that government has failed to satisfy the demands of this bond. As a result, the people have lost their confidence with government and this is the reason why the instances of public unrest and government criticism have become more common in the country. Kamrava (214) conceptualizes the ruling bargain as the struggle that has ensued between the advocates of democracy and the autocratic elites. There has been a fierce war between those who for a long time stood for democracy and the autocratic leaders. In countries such as Iran, there have been domestic struggles as the government fails to achieve their democratic autocrats, which Kamrava feels are not democratic substance. The leaders abuse the ruling bargain by promising liberalization while they remain static to the changes in political spheres. However, there stands hopes for a fair ruling bargain as democratic institutions such as the parliament and the election bodies emerged to control the politics in the Middle East countries. Notably, changes are inevitable in these countries as the democrats pursue a liberal government in an effort to establish a favourable ruling bargain. In conclusion, the Middle East is one of the regions in the world that maintains autocratic leadership and whose leaders have resisted change. The rulers hold powers in their hands and use a lot of economic worth of the country to protect it and to enrich themselves, while ignoring the public interests. The government suppresses the public activism and uses its power to dominate in the social politics. It is evident that the re-election of the leaders in most Middle East countries has been irregular. The result of autocratic leadership is that the economies of these countries are constrained and there is a long way to go if they have to achieve development. The government uses its political mechanisms to oppose democratization or any activist against the government structure. However, as Kamrava points out, it is impossible to rule by mere repression and this is the reason why there has been a wave of change in these countries. Political unrests have pushed many Middle East countries to form a review their ruling bargains to satisfy the needs of the people. On this note, it is recommendable that the Middle East countries change their political structure to pave way for new approaches to political and economic development. Works Cited Kamrava, Mehran. The Modern Middle East: A Political History Since the First World War. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Internet resource. Read More