Political Systems (and finishing post-WWII)

1. Political Systems (and finishing post-WWII)

2. Last class • Strategies for Consolidating Power • Cases: Turkey, Iran, Egypt • Today • Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon in brief • (see readings for comprehensive treatment) • A Typology of Government Systems • Video • Tomorrow – Arab-Israeli Wars

3. Iraq before Saddam • Hashemite Monarchy • Problems in the 1950s • Qasim’s coup in 1958 • Baath Party takes power in 1963 • Arif brothers • Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr • Saddam takes power in 1979

4. Syria before Asad • Legacy of French Mandate • Parliamentary system and political parties • Military intrusion • Michel Aflaq and Syrian Ba’athism • Hafez al-Asad takes power in 1970

5. Jordan after Abdullah • Assassination of King Abdullah in 1951 • Hussein takes power – coup attempts, assassination attempts, and internal war with the PLO in 1970 • Martial Law in 1957 • US support under Eisenhower doctrine

6. Lebanon • Liberal economic policies – strong financial sector and cultural expression • Consociationalism (sectarian pluralism) – the institutionalization of religious identities in politics • Za’im system – localized, regional sectarian interests with individual representatitive • Establishment of Regional sectarian organizations • the Phalange (Gamayel) • Progressive Socialists (Jumblatt) • Muslims calling for new census due to demographic changes • 1958 Civil War

7. Possible Typology • 4 groups: • Nationalist Revolutionary Republics • Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia • Monarchies • Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States • Conditional Democracies • Turkey, Israel, Lebanon • Islamic States • Iran, Sudan

8. Nationalist Revolutionary Republics • Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia • Single-party rule • Exposure to intellectual currents of European state consolidation • Nationalism, some political liberalism, socialism • Soviet Union as capable model of dealing with challenges • European countries were seen as primary culprits of colonialism, US emphasized anti-communism > support of liberal democracy. • Political left (esp. socialist organizations) were most active at opposing colonialism  character of nationalism • Strong, centralized, bureaucratic state • -- Secularization - Western legal systems installed as opposed to indigenous or religious legal codes (shari’a for personal status issues) • Single-party dominance (often masked by multi-partism) • Personalistic Systems - Syria, Libya, Iraq, with dictatorial rulers and legislative bodies

9. Monarchies • Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States • Government ruled by a single person, power passed down hereditarily, separate from all other members of the state • ABSOLUTE vs CONSTITUTIONAL (limited) • More robust after 1950s and 60s when monarchies were not durable • Economic strength (oil rents) in many of the monarchies allows consolidation of power through patronage and cooption • All have aligned with the West (Cold War Balance of Power) • Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman have same ruling family for more than two-hundred years! • Arab kingship not like Europe – gained legitimacy through capable leadership, few institutionalized succession processes, competition among successors  produces strong kings

10. Conditional Democracies • Turkey, Israel, Lebanon • Elected president and legislature • checked by military, religious authorities, or institutionalized confessional appointments • Turkey • Kurds • Expression restricted • Israel • Most open political system • Jewish character of the state (confronts balancing secular and religious like other ME states) • No written constitution, but ‘basic laws‘ • Arab Israelis • Lebanon • Parliamentary republic • Confessional system

11. Islamic States • Iran and Sudan • Pahlavi regime overthrown by Khomeini • Creation of Islamic Republic • Shari’a Law and conservative social norms • Supreme authority in the hands of religious council w/ Supreme Leader (Khamenei) at the very top • Also secular structures of modern state • Not a model of religious totalitarian state due to limits of religious authorities’ involvement in governance (esp. over administering public projects and services – division of labor)