Is Democracy always better?

Lindsay J Benstead examines six different Arab nations in order to test and prove her hypothesis that citizens desire for, or opposition to, democracy within their country depends on political, economic, and religious consequences of the regime change. Lindsay’s argument is in line with the consequence-based theory which provides a fundamental analysis for his argument.

Theoretical Analysis

The consequences after the installment of a political regime, in this case, democracy, shapes the attitudes towards the political regime. Lindsay argues that citizens are concerned with political stability, economic growth, living standards and the safeguarding of cultural rights and practices. Key concerns that are specific to the Arab geographical region are whether freer elections will cause instability and thus economic decline, for instance, this was apparent in Algeria in 1990 and the Palestinians Territories in 2006 that resulted in violence and economic turmoil. Moreover, the fear held by minorities in terms of them loosing there rights and lastly, citizens may be concerned about the deterioration of cultural values, for example the result of increased freedom or European of secular values. This theory interlinks with Governmental performance theory, which links the current, non-democratic regimes perception, whether it appears stable, non-corrupt and economically prosperous it is unlikely the citizens will democracy. Lindsay advocates that individuals are motivated by which regime benefits their goals and maximizes there utilities and opportunities best. Therefore citizens would demand democracy if they are not benefiting from the current regime and democracy would produce better outcomes, however, if they were satisfied with the current regime, they are less likely to demand change. In fact, they are most likely going to be opposed to change due to fears of the consequences of a democratically selected government which could disrupt their lives.

Democracy as an ‘unsuitable’ regime

Lindsay’s data conducted in her chosen nations interestingly display that 60% of citizens support democracy as the form of government. However, only 39% of those who strongly agree that democracy is the best form of government see it as completely suitable. While only a small number ranging from 6-7% who views democracy as unfavorably sees it as a suitable regime. These figures naturally give rise to the question of what conditions of a nation makes a democracy ‘unsuitable’ for it? I attempt to analyse this question in relation to the current crisis in Syria which began with citizens demanding democracy.

Theoretical analysis on Syria’s crisis

The Arab Spring was a series of uprisings advocating for democracy and the removal of authoritarian governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen in 2010. The Arab Spring exemplifies how there was a clear desire for democracy within the Arab region. In 2011 this wave of rebellion transpired in Syria, as citizens took to the streets demanding democracy and the removal of the Assad government.  Similarly to the cases in Algeria and Palestinian territories in 1990, the campaign in in Syria quickly erupted into a violent civil war. This eventually led to the rise of ISIS violent terrorist organizations domination in the area and subsequent destruction of the country’s political and economic system. In the case we can see how the attempt to transition to democracy will have series effects on how citizens in Syria view the regime. Lindsay’s hypothesis would predict that citizens will now associate democracy with violence, instability and economic destruction and in the future if Syria is to reform its political system following her figures, aspirations for democracy may be severely lessened.  

Linking this point back with the consequential theory, only extreme jihadist groups benefited from protests for democracy, due to them taking advantage of the power vacuum that was created and used this to gain power. Ordinary citizens however, were either killed or forced to flee their homes unless they join the organization. Therefore, in theory if following this logic, if the political regime was to reform in Syria there would be a larger support for the return of the Assad regime. Turning back to the other prominent theory Lindsay credits, governmental-performance theory, and the outcome is not so predictable. President Assad’s repressive regime restricted civil liberties and manipulated state institutions. This led to illegitimateCensored! elections and restrictive officials who dictated citizen’s lives. In many aspects the Assad regime only benefited the elites in society, and despite the current instability in Syria, it is unlikely citizens would want the return of their authoritarian government. In contrast, citizens may still desire democracy; however, due to these horrific experiences associated with an attempt to transition to it, they may see it as unsuitable for Syria.

Lindsay argues an interesting point that citizens desire for or opposition to, democracy within their country depends on political, economic, and religious consequences of the regime change. She offers insightful answers from nations experiences in the Arab region and backs this up with extensive data. However, her analysis is still largely theoretical and highly debatable. When applying her arguments in light of the current Syria crisis it offers a unique theoretical perspective, which in the near future we will be able to observe it play out.

Benstead, Lindsay J. 2014. Why do some Arab citizens see democracy as unsuitable for their country ?Democratization: 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.94004

Phillip Droz-Vincent ‘"State of Barbary" (Take Two): From the Arab Spring to the Return of Violence in Syria’ The Middle East Journal, vol 68, no26, winter 2014 pp37-54