Βy Stavros Kalenteridis
For the first case, it seems really difficult for a state to have political liberalization, with the contemporary meaning of the concept, without political democratization. On the other hand we could mention some alternatives. For instance there are some liberal services in the Middle East, even in states with no political democratization, and they can be found in a different context than government, like that of religion. Islam plays a great role in Middle Eastern societies and…the services and community of the mosque share many similar traits with the political liberal democracies of the West. An additional different form of liberalization, but only on an economic level is the case in the UAE and Qatar where they have adapted economic liberal traits, managing to integrate their economies to the global capitalist system. But it seems that it in the strict meaning of political liberalization of the West, the existence of political democratization is a major requirement.
On the other hand, in the Middle East, the exact opposite is a reality. In countries like Egypt, Jordan and many of the other monarchies, there are many political parties but their real power is weak. The presence of these mass political parties guarantees the democratic character of the political system, but their relative (differs from state to state) weakness or constrained powers undermine and essentially deny the liberal trait from the system. Many scholars have described this type of democracy, not as liberal, but rather as an “Arab democracy”.

How the major liberal democratic powers did encourage democracy in the Middle East, and how democratization can develop?
It is well known that both Britain, who left absolute monarchies before its retreat after the end of World War II from the region, and also the U.S. who has supported undemocratic policies and even allied authoritarian states, didn’t actually support democracy in the area. But despite these considerations, there is a high chance of democracy to develop in the region. One important reason behind this opinion is the emergence of a strong literate urbanized middle class. This class has led to democratization of political systems in many and varied cultures in which was created throughout history, so this could also be the case for the Middle East. If we study the political history and the effects of the above mentioned middle class in many countries, even in repressive and authoritarian cases, it seems logical that this could also lead to democratization for Middle Eastern states. In addition, some of the countries, like Turkey, Israel and pre-civil war Lebanon, have (or had in the case of Lebanon), already democratic regimes. These regimes are very successful in both political and economic level. It is believed that this success will work as an example for the citizens and the leaders of the rest of the Middle Eastern countries and will eventually lead them to adopt this kind of regimes. Finally, another reason that democratization will develop in the area, is the fact that the exact conditions that created these undemocratic regimes in the Middle East are currently non-existent or in decline. These conditions were the post-colonial politics, mainly employed by U.S., Britain and France and the Cold War competition, mainly between U.S. and USSR. The post-colonial politics created undemocratic regimes and the Cold War period maintained and supported them.

Regarding civil society, in what fashion does it exist in Middle Eastern societies, most of whose governments are authoritarian?
Civil society even in authoritarian governments exists and actually it’s really strong in the Middle East. Civil society exists and operates in the context of family, clan and most importantly in the context of Islam. Institutions, NGOs, non-state actors, political parties, labor and trade unions, community associations, and interest groups in general are essentially expressing the civil society’s needs on a daily basis and on every level of a citizen’s life. Except from these civic, non-governmental institutions, civil society in the region also exists in the form of informal arrangements between the common people.

In the Middle East, the task of state building, “the creation of governments that are legitimate, stable, and capable of acting autonomously both regionally and globally,” has not been easy. Why is this the case?
There are two particular reasons in the Middle Eastern case, about why the task of state building has not been an easy one. These reasons are exclusive for the Middle East. Perhaps the most important reason is the idea of “pan-Arabism”. The people in the Middle East were always and until today (to some extent) envisioning a greater Arab nation. At the same time they are members of a particular state in the current form of the region. But the coexistence of the current states and the dream for a pan-Arab nation, have created blurred and undefined boundaries of these two concepts. Essentially, the idea of pan-Arabism led many people and governments in the Middle East to interfere in the domestic issues of their “brother” Arab nations in the region. In addition, the common problems of the Arab nations (the Arab-Israeli conflict) and the actual attempts for unification (like Egypt and Syria) further enhanced these feelings and slowed down the whole procedure of state building on a separate, individual basis.
Finally, the other major reason for making the task of state building difficult in this particular area was the fact that unlike many evolved states around the world, the Middle Eastern countries couldn’t create their political structures or achieve their political reality through a healthy, gradual and internal process. On the contrary, the political structures and institutions in the area were literally imposed on them, most of the time against their will, by the colonial and post-colonial powers. These powers imposed their political ideas without first considering and evaluating each country’s different situation and needs. As a result the new countries of the Middle East were ill-prepared to address the regional and global issues that soon emerged. One of those issues was created by the presence of the international petroleum companies, who exploited this condition of weakness of the Arab states, took advantage of them and created further obstacles to their healthy state building process.