Introduction
The twentieth and the twenty first centuries are some of the periods that have recorded the highest level of change, especially from a political perspective, not only in the Arab countries, but also the non-Arab countries in all continents across the world. This is due to the fact that various countries, with or without the support of international bodies such as the United Nations, have been working closely with the civilians, as well as their neighbors, in order to embrace democracy, and sovereign power for their nations (Filali-Ansary 10). With the various changes (such as political, economic, religious and other social-cultural) taking place across the globe, there has been the increased desire and necessity for growth in these countries, whereby they need to be organized in line with these changes, in order to remain organized in the above mentioned perspectives. This paper will carry out a comparative analysis between seven countries; Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Variables explaining the differences
It is necessary to note the fact that all the above highlighted countries experienced differences and diversity, from a national perspective, and this is the reason why they are differently organized, and faced different variables that contributed to the civil mass actions. Before discussing them in details, it is necessary to highlight them, and these were the democratic rights of the countries, systems of administration (such as autocracy and bureaucracy), power struggle between different Islamic groups (as in the case of Syria), economic projections and plans and differences in political opinions and logistics. At the same time, it is necessary to note that different countries, due to their differences in their political and administrational organization, face different challenges, and this is the main reason why all these variables affected specific countries, as it will be discussed in this paper.
Variables’ effects in specific Arab countries
For a long time, the Arab countries have been consistently changing, especially, from a political front. Egypt, particularly, is one of the countries that have experienced regime change as a result of civil action in the twenty first century, especially, due to advocating for democracy and freedom of state. This has also been noted by the fact that Egypt, amongst other countries have been advocating for regime change, whereby they seek to have different forms of political administration. However, there have been challenges, especially, in cases where the leaders are not willing to freely resign from office. As a result, these countries have been advocating alternative means through which they will acquire the political change, liberation and freedom. Some of these strategies have been mass-activated, for example, through civil mobilization. This, especially, became a common trend in the last decade of the twentieth century, and the current twenty first century. From a brief outlook, some of such cases are yet to be settled down, especially, in cases that have involved the Arab (Muslim) and Christian communities. An example of such a case includes the Palestine-Israel tag of war, which has left many people dead, homeless or as political refugees in other countries, and is yet to reach a political and administrational consensus (Lust 130).
Civilian mobilization for regime change in Arab countries
One of the most essential things to note concerning the Arab countries, particularly Egypt, include the fact that they are differently organized, and as a result, face different challenges in their organization and administration. As a result, different people in different Arab countries face varied and dissimilar challenges, which they have been trying to tackle from different perspectives, such as the administrational government’s involvement, or the sole involvement of the civilians, depending with the administrational government’s collaboration or lack of the same, thereof. At the same time, it is necessary to note the fact that different Arab countries are differently organized from a political perspective, irrespective of the fact that they are all administered through the Quran law, which is the Islamic holy book. As a result, therefore, the different ways forms of political organization and administration have led to differences in the political engagement and involvement, particularly, concerning the general public.
In order to achieve political freedom and sovereignty, therefore, different countries and Arab states have used different media in order to make their voices heard. Egypt, for example, has been marred by tyrannical regimes, whereby, political power (which in this case entails factors such as administration) has been organized and passed on from one family or person to the next. This is one of the factors that led to mass action, particularly between the years 2009-2010, as the civilians advocated for change of regime and leadership. However, this is one of the aspects that democracy has been working hard in order to end, and this is the main reason why many Arab countries have had mass movements and civilian actions, seeking to end these tyrannical systems of rule and governance (Filali-Ansary 15).
Among some of the most essential things to not concerning these civil actions as they pushed and advocated for change in regimes, include the fact that most of these changes and actions did not make their way through to the mainstream media. As a result, very few people, globally, came in terms with or understood the actual situation on the ground. This was particularly so in Africa. For example, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are some of the Arab countries that have experienced a lot of challenges, especially, from a political perspective. The same case has affected Morocco, a country in West Africa, to a considerably notable extent. One of the challenges to note concerning the Arab countries in Africa is the fact that they have been suffering from one major challenge; lack of democracy. This is the reason why the international bodies and organizations have had to intervene, in order to try address the challenge and ensure that there is maximum cooperation between the government and the civilian, in not only providing quality services to the people, but also from an administrative perspective (Roy 10).
At the same time, considering the fact that various international organizations as well as other countries such as the United States have been heavily involved in the development of the country, some of the consequent outcomes include external intervention, in assisting the civilians (the country citizens) to foster for political and regime change in their respective countries. This has led to the interference of some of these international organizations, and this was the case in Libya, which was highly publicized in the year 2011, which led to the assassination of Libya’s former president Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, who had been in power for half a century (Roy 14).
As a result, this is one of the cases whereby such a regime change was highly publicized, both in the regional, as well as the international fronts. The civilians, also, asked for more assistance from the international organizations. This is, partly, one of the reasons through which the country’s civilians have had to involve other people and international parties and organizations, in order to make sure that the country achieves and gains a different regime (Roy 15).
Differences in political challenges
One of the most essential things to note concerning the Arab countries is the fact that the countries faced and continue to face different challenges, based on their organization and administration. For example, from the analysis of various countries, such as Tunisia and Egypt, the countries were experiencing challenges, with their constitution’s instability. This is different from Libya’s challenges, which was faced and marred by lots of economic instability, as well as change in regime. As a result of this, the countries have been facing various challenges from their administration, as well as their political organization. In Egypt, for example, due to the inapplicability of some of the constitution’s organization, some of the challenges that have come along with it include the class decisions, which led to the promotion and existence of poverty among specific groups, while other groups were doing well financially, and this is one of the aspects that the government administration did not address (Gregory 116).
In Syria, on the other hand, the situation has been very different, as the country continues to face various administrational challenges, as a result of frustrations from the immediate neighbors, as well as the international organizations. The country has, however, internally experienced power struggles between various Islamic organizations. These include Sunnis, Shiites and the Allawies, as each of these groups seek to take over power in the country. As a result, this is one of the factors that have led to civil mass action in the country, since each of these groups has specific civilians that they directly influence, in order to take over power and administrational governance in the country.
Thirdly, culture s and histories are yet another major aspect that leads to differences in different political organization, as well as mass actions for the same. One of the major factors to be noted in this case include the fact that all these countries have gone through different challenges, especially, in order for them to reach the state at which they are, from an administrational, political, economic and even social-cultural perspectives. At the same time, the systems of governance that have been applied in the countries are different, whereby; some of the systems are authoritarian systems of regime, while others are bureaucratic. In cases of bureaucracy, the civilians have been working hard in order to achieve democratization (Lust 125).
According to Way, through democratization of the states, therefore, the countries will be in a better position to access national resources with ease, as opposed to the current state of governance, whereby, they only access minimal resources (19). In cases of resources’ access, on the other hand, these nations take a longer time, and go through more challenges in achieving the same. This is one of the reasons why the civilians have worked hard, for example through mass action, in order to achieve the same. In Tunisia and Egypt, for example, the system and political administration tradition that has been established is a bureaucratic system. This is different from Libya, which was going through an authoritative (autocratic) system of governance. The difference between the two nations, for example, is the fact that Tunisia and Egypt were being affected by the constitution, and the vagueness and complexity of the same, which led to various unconcluded tasks, as well as poorer services of the people, through administration (Barany 26).
According to Harik, Libya, on the other hand, had an autocratic system, whereby, the president is the main future that led to poor performance of the state, especially, from a democratic perspective (670). In as much as the state was doing well financially, on the ground level, the country did not have freedom accorded to the civilians in an equal measure, and this is one of the aspects that frustrated the exercise of democratic rights, such as elections based on free and fair grounds (Harik 673). This is one of the major differences between the civilian mass action in Tunisia and Egypt, in comparison to Libya, since Tunisia and Egypt have had a democratic platform, as supposed and facilitated by the constitution, to take to the streets and media (both regional and international) in advocating for change of regime in the nation. In fact, this is a similarity between Tunisia and Egypt (Harik 673).
Libya, on the other hand, did not have a platform through which the civilians can protest concerning the same. As a result, Libya’s citizens had to call for assistance and external help, from international bodies such as the United Nations, which intervened in bringing down the dictator, while countries such as Tunisia and Egypt have managed to do the same on their own, due to effective organization between the willing members of the government and the civilians. At the same time, considering the fact that the constitution allowed and gave room for the exercise of the same, it provided a clear platform for the same. As a result, they have participated in Arab Springs, which have led to the change or regime, based on legitimate and democratic platforms, especially in Egypt, in 2010 (Bayat 144).
Conclusion
In conclusion, therefore, there are several aspects that have come to observation. Firstly, the major and common challenge that all these Arabic nations have been going through, and that has led to the inclusion of mass movement as a way to tackle the challenge, is lack of democracy in the states’ management, administration and leadership. This is the main reason why the nations have been playing their role, from the civilians’ edge, to advocate for a change in their system of administration and leadership, which is characterized by office take-off by other leaders (Bayat 143).
According to Barany, in Africa, especially, the greatest challenge that the countries have been facing is lack of support for change, whereby, they are not willing to bring change into their leadership, management and even in the ways through which the leaders relate with their subjects in their respective countries (25). The reason, therefore, why some Arabic countries have taken up civilian mass action in advocating for change of regime while others haven’t is due to the fact that all the countries are going through different challenges, which differently trigger the civilians to take action; based on their traditions, leadership and governance styles, their constitutions and the civilians’ willingness to take up the mass action, among other differences. At the same time, however, democracy acts as the main denominator to all these countries, whereby, lack of democratic rights such as room for demonstration has affected some countries, and created no room for them to take up the same. This, for example, was the case in Libya, until international bodies and organizations intervened, which strengthened the countries into taking up mass action against the Gadhafi regime (Anderson 22).
Arab countries in the gulf region
On the other hand, it is necessary to note that some of the Arab countries did not get involved in mass action, especially, in their change of regimes, based on several factors. Some of these countries, for example, include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait, among other Arab countries in the gulf region. From the previous analysis, one of the aspects that stand out, especially in the African Arab countries is the fact that the countries faced lots of political challenges, whose sources can be drawn to poor economies, which led to the mismanagement of the same. This is different from the gulf Arab countries, which were rich in resources, as a result of their oil endeavors (Barany 29).
Considering the fact that these gulf Arabian countries have had resources garnered from their oil export, they have been in a better position to develop, especially economically. The countries acknowledge the fact that for them to be in effective diplomatic relations with other countries in order to boost their oil sales to them, effective administration and governance for the countries is mandatory. This has led to aspects such as the development of the constitution and practice of the same based on democracy, which also provides a good and conducive environment for thriving and growth in other sectors, which in this case, include the political and administrational fronts. This is one of the reasons why the countries have had successful passing over of power from one leader to the next, without having to necessarily involve aspects such as mass or civil action. This is what sets the difference between the gulf and Asian Arab countries, compared to the African Arab countries, which have been marred with civil action and demonstrations, as it has been seen earlier in this paper (Barany 30).
Works cited
Anderson, Lisa. "Demystifying the Arab Revolt: Understanding the Differences Between Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya." Foreign Affairs May/ June 2011. Print.
Barany, Zoltan. "The Role of the Military: Comparing the Arab Revolts." Journal of Democracy 22: 4, 2011 (24-35). Print.
Bayat, Asef. "The "Street" and the Politics of Dissent in the Arab World." Middle East Report 226 Spring 2003, Retrieved from http://www.merip.org/mer/mer226/226_bayat.html on May 18th 2013. Web.
Bayat, Asef. "The Paradoxes of Arab Refo-lutions," Jadaliyya. March 3, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/contributors/7739 on May 18th 2013. Web.
Filali-Ansary, Abdou. "The Languages of the Arab Revolutions." Journal of Democracy 23: 2, 2012 (5-18). Print.
Gregory Gause. "Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring." Foreign Affairs July/August 2011. Print.
Harik, Iliya. “Democracy, "Arab Exceptionalism," and Social Science.” The Middle East Journal 60: 4, 2006 (664-684). Print.
Lust, Ellen. “Competitive Clientelism in the Middle East.” Journal of Democracy, 20: 3, 2009, (122-135). Print.
Roy, Olivier. "The Transformation of the Arab World." Journal of Democracy 2: 3, 2012 (5-18). Print.
Way, Lucan. "The Lessons of 1989." Journal of Democracy 22: 4, 2011 (13-23). Print.
