MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS

Patrimonialism and Informal Politics



Patrimonialism and Informal Politics

Introduction to Patrimonialism and Informal Politics in Middle East

Patrimonialism, the appropriation of public property by the private run in power, is a concept developed by Max Weber was developed. Modern societies should follow his optimistic view, the Patrimonialism through a rational replace bureaucracy. The colonized countries have only a few cases to establish a government structure in which the individual does not have possessed trickle over great freedom of the arbitrary appropriation of wealth. Many despots looked to King Louis XIV, the Sun King's motto: "I am the state" (Staniland, 1985). In comparative political research, patrimonilaism is defined as a political system that builds on the administrative and military structures, which in turn one autocrat are bound by instructions. Examples of patrimonial states include Indonesia under Suharto or the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos.

Many developing and transitional countries like the Middle East have set up a superstructure of rational-legal administration, which nonetheless continues to rest on a deep foundation of patrimonial rule. Informal institutions are also making adjustments to the electoral law. For example, in Middle East, a system of proportional representation and a ban on re-election to Congress legislators do not provide a formal motivation for the discharge of their duties. Attention to the informal rules as may be necessary to explain the institutional implications. Informal structures affect the operation of formal institutions, substantial and sometimes unexpected ways (Huelsemeyer, 2010). For example, the relationship between the legislative and executive branches sometimes cannot be explained strictly in terms of the constitutional structure. Neo-patrimonial rules allowing unlimited presidential control over state institutions in Africa and Middle-East, often lead to such a domination of the executive branch, which goes far beyond the scope of presidential powers under the constitution. On the other hand, informal institutions may limit the power of the president.

Political Significance

The term "informal institution" appears to apply to an incredibly wide range of phenomena, including personal relationships, clientelism, corruption, clans and mafias, civil society, traditional culture and a variety of legislative, judicial and bureaucratic rules. Their political significance lies on the thought that these informal institutions have to be regulated or else they create hurdles in the effective functioning of the state. However, informal institutions should cover the maximum number of informal rules, but at the same time be sufficiently narrow to distinguish from other informal rules, non-institutional, informal events (Huelsemeyer, ...