AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES

How are decisions made in authoritarian regimes in the Middle East?

How are decisions made in authoritarian regimes in the Middle East?

Introduction

Research Problem

In decision making of authoritarian regimes in Middle East Countries, the human rights are not considered important and are merely ignored, which has led to the upspring revolution and political crisis. This indicates the authoritarian weakness in the Arab world.

Context

The Concept and the Essence of Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is usually characterized as a type of regime that is intermediate between totalitarianism and democracy. However, this response does not indicate the essential features of the phenomenon as a whole, even if the features of totalitarianism and democracy are clearly distinguished. Essentially it is important in determining the nature of the relationship between authoritarian government and society. These relations are based more on coercion than on persuasion, although the regime liberalizes public life, although there is no clearly developed guiding ideology. The authoritarian regime permits a limited and controlled by the plurality in the political thinking, beliefs and actions that may be reconciled with the presence of the opposition (Frantz, E. and Ezrow, p.23).

Historical Perspective

Historically, authoritarianism existed in various forms in a variety of times and in different countries (for example, ancient Greek and oriental despotism and tyranny - Persia, Sparta, and many other feudal absolutist regimes, etc.). His theory was first developed by ultraconservative and reactionary theorists of the early XIX century. However, now the middle countries are prominent evidence who have adopted authoritarianism, and accordingly they make decisions.

Authoritarian Regimes in Middle East Countries

Some may argue that supporting these authoritarian regimes is preferable, as to live in uncertainty scenarios where the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism or "takeover" of Al Qaeda is considered real options. "Political realism" is the word used to justify this approach, which is consistent with this syndrome in Tehran. However, the reality, at least in what was seen in media such as Al Jazeera, is very far from suggesting this syndrome.

Before the crisis in Middle East countries it seemed unlikely that the concept could be applied in the Middle East and North Africa region where authoritarian regimes would deny citizenship to political, economic and social rights. But the popular uprisings that ended with governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya now appear to have opened a window of opportunity. Consequently, it has influenced the decisions of the political figures in Arab world. The Arab Spring has made clear that public are the main asset of the countries and thus, there shall be a democratic rule. According King (p.206) the background of these revolutions is linked with the struggle for freedom and democracy. The desire to be free is a powerful engine, so when Tunisia fell everyone knew that other countries would not be far from collapsing too. A key demand of protesters in the surveys was that governments are accountable to their peoples. Traditionally, governments act as a pyramid with the top executive body. The objective of human rights cities shall be to reverse the pyramid ...