New Paper: Oil and Dynastic Rule Influence Arab Spring Outcomes

October 25, 2013
By Doug Gavel, HKS Communications

The Arab Spring, which raised hopes for a wave of democratic reforms throughout the Middle East, has so far led to regime change in only four countries—Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Why that dramatic series of almost synchronized uprisings reaped such modest dividends is the subject of a new paper, "Tracking the ‘Arab Spring’: Why the Modest Harvest?," published in the Journal of Democracy, co-authored by Harvard Kennedy School Associate Professor Tarek Masoud.
"The Arab Spring that resides in the popular imagination is one in which a wave of mass mobilization swept the broader Middle East, toppled dictators, and cleared the way for democracy. The reality is that few Arab countries have experienced anything of the sort," the authors write. "The Arab Spring’s modest harvest — a record far less inspiring than those of the East European revolutions of 1989 or sub-Saharan Africa’s political transitions in the early 1990s — cries out for explanation."
Masoud and co-authors Jason Brownlee of the University of Texas, Austin and Andrew Reynolds of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, examined the political, social and economic conditions under which the various national protest movements were launched and sustained. Their analysis identified two primary factors – a nation’s oil exports and the nature of its ruling structure – that directly influenced the outcomes in each country.
According to the authors, oil wealth endows leaders with extra repressive capacity, and the means to buy off regime elements that might otherwise defect in the face of protest. And regimes that practice hereditary rule are ones that have forged “unusually strong ties between the ruler and the repressive apparatus.”
“Dynasticism and oil rents operate as complementary, rather than competing, variables,” they argue. “Either characteristic is enough to ensure that the regime will retain power, while a regime without either will fall quickly once popular pressure and military defections begin to mount.”
Masoud and his co-authors argue that there is little chance that similar change will occur anytime soon in the other Arab countries.
“Many think that it is only a matter of time before the doleful dynastic stability of Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia gives way to popular demands for dignity and freedom. This may be so,” they claim. “But our theory predicts that these regimes will not respond to such challenges by turning in on themselves, packing the autocrat off to exile, and negotiating the dismantling of the old order. Monarchies that have ruled for the better part of 250 years in Saudi Arabia, 400 in Morocco, or 100 in Jordan, and gathered into their hands all the threads of power and privilege, will not go quietly.”
Tarek Masoud is an associate professor of public policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. A political scientist and Middle East specialist, his research focuses on the role of religion in the Muslim world's political development.

Tarek Masoud, associate professor of public policy

Tarek Masoud, associate professor of public policy

"The Arab Spring’s modest harvest — a record far less inspiring than those of the East European revolutions of 1989 or sub-Saharan Africa’s political transitions in the early 1990s — cries out for explanation," write the authors.

 


John F. Kennedy School of Government 79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-495-1100 Get Directions Visit Contact Page