Você está na página 1de 16

John Golden May 15, 2012 Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and Turkey


For many years the persistence of authoritarianism in the Middle East has been studied by many scholars. Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, researchers have tried to comprehend why authoritarianism tends to persist over democracy in Middle Eastern countries. Many different studies have been done. Within these studies, two general themes are seen. The first of these are the overwhelming Muslim population in the Middle Eastern countries. This being the case, the question of whether the Islamic faith is specifically suited for an authoritarian government has been asked. The second theme that seems to be most often studied is the abundance of oil resources in the Middle East. It has been postulated that the presence, industrialization, and refinement of oil in Middle Eastern nation states lends itself to the establishment of authoritarian governments. Within this paper I will try to answer the question of why Middle Eastern countries often have established authoritarian government. I will examine both the religious aspects of Islam as well as the economic impact of an oil industry. It is my intent to show that the Islamic worship of Middle Eastern countries has little to do with the establishment of authoritarian government. Rather, I believe that the oil industry, which is so prevalent in Middle Eastern countries, breezy establishment of authoritarian rulers. To accomplish this I will focus my research on both Saudi Arabia and Turkey. By examining these two countries, I will attempt to dissect the effect of Islamic worship as it applies to the governments type of rule. Moreover, I will examine the oil industries in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia in an effort to show its direct relationship with authoritarianism.

Introduction
Authoritarianism is a word used to describe a form of government in which political authority is concentrated into a small group of ruling politicians. Historically speaking, there are several different types of this government. In medieval times, nations were ruled by absolute monarchies with all the power controlled by King or Queen. More recently our history we have seen dictatorships. These are governments that are ruled by a single member who supported by a small group of elite personnel. More recently in our history, many nation states have shifted to a Democratic ruling government. Michael L Ross, a professor of clinical science at the University of California, Los Angeles, writes in his article "Will Oil Drown the Arab Spring?" that in 1980 just 30% of the world's governments were Democratic. In the last three decades, democracy has made impressive strides across the world. Today, about 60% of the world's governments are democracies. (Michael Ross Citation) While the overwhelming majority of the world has decided that democracy is the best way to govern, the nations that comprise the Middle East have not followed the trend. According to the 2011 democracy index, 87% of the countries that make up the Middle East are ruled by authoritarian regimes. These regimes include Absolute Monarchies, Arab Socialist states, and Dictatorships. There are numerous different theories on the subject of why the Middle East has resisted the shift to democratic rule. Some scholars argue that the Islamic culture and values of the Middle East are incompatible with democracy. Their theory is that without a clear difference between religion and state democracy is hindered in the region. On the other hand, other scholars have theorized that is the robust industries built around the Middle Eastern's resource abundance. Their view is that the vast wealth amassed by the exportation of natural resources, such as oil, is directly related high number of authoritarian regimes within the region. Numerous studies have been done on the subject, with no clear answer being found.

Within this paper I intend to address the issue of authoritarian regimes within the Middle East and figure out if the Muslim religion of Islam is the cause for the stifling of democracy in the region or if wealth gained from a rich oil exportation could possibly be the cause. It were to accomplish this, I will focus my study on two countries, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Islam in the Region


The Muslim religion of Islam is the second largest in the world. In an executive summary entitled the future of the global Muslim population, the pew research Center found that 1.6 billion people in the world practice Islam. That is about 23% of the world's population. Of those people, 20% of all Muslims live in the Middle East. (Pew research Center) The practice of Islam is based on six pillars of belief. These pillars are a belief in the Almighty God, angels, the profits, religious texts, the hereafter and destiny. (Kuru lecture quote) While most of these can be seen throughout numerous religions, it is the manner in which Muslims practice Islam that is different. They believed in five pillars of practice. These pillars include the testimony of faith, praying five times a day, fasting, the giving of alms and the completion of a pilgrimage. (Kuru lecture quote) The Muslim faith is not so much of a practice religion. Rather, it is a religion that is embodied by its followers as a lifestyle. So knowing this, is it possible that the practice of Islam leads to the establishment of authoritarianism? The possible link between the Muslim faith of Islam and authoritarianism has been researched by numerous individuals. The correlation between politics and Islam has been described as "emphasis on obedience to authority". (Sorensen, 2008, p. 54) This obedience directly relates to the political authority that is built within an authoritarian regime. In fact, Islam sets forth guidelines for maintaining order. In his 2004 book A History of the Modern Middle East, William Cleveland says that Islam has "the necessary ingredients for modern development". (Cleveland, 2004, P. 443) however, Islam can be seen as being "immutable and unchanging" (Sorensen, 2008, P. 56). The Democratic wave over the past 30

years has brought forth new ideas and changing culture. In fact, is been suggested that in order for democracy to have a foothold for success a country must embrace "openness, competition, pluralism, and tolerance of diversity" (Saikal and Schnabel, 2003, P. 108). If the Muslim faith is unable to adapt to new ideas, it can be seen that Islam is a direct obstruction for the establishment of democracy in the Middle East. On the other side of the argument, there are individuals that believe Islam has little to do with the establishment or maintaining of authoritarian regimes. In the book Are Muslims Distinctive?, Stephen Fish tackles the question of whether or not Muslims have major differences from non-Muslims. Within his findings, Fish finds that there is little substantial difference between Muslims and non-Muslims when it comes to their level of personal religiosity. Additionally, Muslims attitude toward religious leaders being involved in politics reflect little difference between non-Muslims (fish, 2011, P. 255 256). From these findings one to make the argument that a belief in Islam has little or nothing to do with the political establishment of authoritarian regime. In fact, "Muslims partake of a global consensus on keeping those who convey God's word and ways away from the people in the realm of political decisionmaking" (fish, 2011, P. 257). If this is indeed the case, the pricing of Islam is not so much a factor to shape Middle Eastern politics. Rather, Islam is simply a widely held religion in the Middle Eastern region and bares little fruit to the argument. In effort to figure out which position correctly identifies Islam's role in the authoritarian nature of Middle Eastern politics, let's examine Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The country of Saudi Arabia is ruled under absolute monarchy. What this means is that the King of Saudi Arabia is both the head of the state and the head of the government. The Saudi Arabian government is controlled by single royal family. This family is the Al Saud. Currently, the Saudi Arabian government is led by their monarch named King Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz. (Saudi Embassy.net) the country has no official Constitution; rather the monarchy claims the Quran as the Constitution for their

country. There are no official elections in Saudi Arabia. Instead, all political participation outside of the royal family is solely dependent on the royal familys allowance of the greater Saudi population to participate (Marshall Cavendish, P. 78). To summarize, Saudi Arabia has in place a full authoritarian regime which control the country. According to world statistics from nationmaster.com, Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim (nationmaster.com). What this means that statistically speaking there is no other official presence of diverse religious beliefs. This being the case, it is easy to make the assumption that since all people in Saudi Arabia are Muslim it must be the cause of the authoritarian rule in which they are under. The case can be further made that Islam has affect on the authoritarian rule since the Quran is the Constitution for the country. However, since there is no official documentation specifically written to be the basis of law and Saudi Arabia, it leaves the rules set forth by the Quran for governance up for debate. Since the Quran does not specifically set forth in authoritarian requirement, the ruling family Al Saud can put in place any kind government they feel works for them. In order further this point that Islam has little or nothing to do with the manner in which a nation is governed, let's shift our attention to the country of Turkey. The Middle Eastern country of Turkey is ruled as a parliamentary representative democratic republic. The parliamentary government consists of 550 seats for members across 81 different provinces (Quinn testicle.co.uk). Turkey says state is President Abdullah Gould. Presidential elections are held every five years with all citizens being able to vote once they are over the age of 19. According the nation master.com, 99.8% of citizens within Turkey are Muslim (nation master.com). The statistic makes Turkey an interesting country to study in an effort to prove or disprove Islam's role in authoritarianism. The reason for this is that nearly all of Turkey's population practices Islam. However, unlike authoritarian regime and Saudi Arabia, Turkey has a practicing representative democracy. Ahmet T Kuru, a political

science professor at San Diego State University, points to the fact that Turkey has a "new interpretation of Islam which is confined to individual conscience and does not intervene in personal ways of life" (Kuru, P. 176). Professor Kuru continues on explaining that Turkey "provides Islamic instruction in public schools and operates public Islamic schools" (Kuru, P. 166). With the overwhelming majority of the Turkish population being Muslim can actively practicing Islam, it clearly defines the point that practicing Islam does not mandate the implementation of authoritarian government. The claim that countries that actively embrace Islam is a major contributing factor to the implementation of authoritarian government does not hold water. Now while many Middle Eastern countries are Muslim, it has been shown to be only mere coincidence that the majority of them are controlled by authoritarian regimes. Saudi Arabia does embrace Islam as the basis for their political structure however, even their ruling party can debate the word of the Quran and implement any governing system that they choose to. Turkey is the best demonstration of this. While they to are comprised of the population that is mostly Muslim, they have embraced democratic change and have implemented a representative parliamentary government. It is clear that while the vast majority of Middle Eastern countries actively participate in Islam, the practice has little to no bearing on the establishment of authoritarian rule.

Oil Effects in the Region


An important aspect of the nations government is the manner in which they make money. Governments that are established all around the world have numerous ways of accomplishing this task. Some countries economic stability is solely based on the work of their people. For example, a nation with a large workforce has economy that is based on the money made, spent, and utilized by their citizens. With this being the case, the government raises money through tax revenue. Another way look this would be the observation that the government only is able to operate and remain established to the

income revenue generated by their people. In return for the tax by at the government collects from citizens, the government builds infrastructure for the country and supplies insistence and social programs. While this system of government is prevalent throughout the world, is not the only established manner in which governments raise revenue. The importance of raising money for government is paramount. With the money raised by government, it allows the government to successfully maintain the economy of their country. Some countries do not have the need to tax their citizens in order to raise revenues. Numerous countries are considered to be rich in natural resources. In the Middle East, the resource that drives the economy is oil. Oil has not always been the most lucrative of natural resources. However, with the employment of an Arab oil embargo that followed the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, oil prices jumped from $2.50 a barrel in 1972 to about $12 a barrel in 1974 (Ross, Arab spring, P. 2). This spike in price inspired many individuals to want to cash in on the now extremely lucrative oil industry. Moreover, with 56% of the world's oil in the Middle East (US energy information administration), numerous Middle Eastern countries jumped on the oil production money train. By nationalizing the oil production market within the oil-rich countries of the Middle East, establish ruling parties and governments were able to raise revenue without having to depend on the taxes generated by their citizens. What this really means is that established government regimes no longer were dependent on their people for the revenue to support their economy. With governments in the Middle East no longer tied to taxation revenue, established authoritarian regimes were no longer in need of their citizens support. Instead, they were able to pump money into enhancing the lucrative oil business on a national scale. This nationalization made the regimes in control the oil exporting countries rich and powerful. Authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East use some of this amassed wealth to "fund social programs to improve public services and appease their populations" (Ross, Arab spring, P. 2). By utilizing some of the wealth amassed the oil

industry in the establishment of such social reform, Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes were essentially able to buy off their citizens. Michael Ross, a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, points out that oil companies Middle Eastern regimes "survived ways of democratization that swept the globe the 1980s and 1990s" (Ross, Arab spring, P. 2). With the vast abundance of the planets oil reserves being located in the Middle East, this factor must be thoroughly examined an effort to understand the reasoning why authoritarianism is so prevalent in the Middle East. Professor Ross has made the observation that dictators and monarchs in the Middle East have used oil revenues to finance vast patronage networks. These networks generally include both the regime supporters and their potential opponents. By using this duality of monetary entanglement, the idea of democracy building sturdy coalitions among independent groups is highly unlikely (Ross, Arab spring, P. 7). Such coalitions are required for a democracy to establish a sturdy foothold in an otherwise authoritarian country. It order to successfully and completely examine the effect of oil on Middle Eastern countries, we will again look at the examples of both Saudi Arabia and Turkey. We will examine three different oil effects on the countries. First we'll take a look at a monetary breakdown of the countries oil production and oil exports. Secondly, we will examine education levels of the citizens of both countries. Lastly, we will dissect the size and strength of both Saudi Arabia's and Turkey's military forces. Monetary Evaluation The first of the oil effects which need to be looked at the amount of money that Middle Eastern countries raise due to oil revenues. As it has been previously discussed, a government's power comes from its ability to raise revenue and provide for its citizens. Within the Middle East, oil was abundant resource. With the implementation of a strong oil production industry, the potential to raise a very large sum of money is very realistic. The country's government was to nationalize this booming industry it

would remove the necessity for taxation of the countries populace. The effect this has on the people of the country is quite daunting. If there is no need for the government to raise revenue through taxation, the net government is totally self-sustaining and does not require the support of its people. On the other hand, if a country's government only exists because the people pay taxes and give it the power to operate, and that government is more inclined to support the people that continue to allow its day-today operation. In effort to better understand this effect we will take a look at Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Currently, the country of Turkey has a government which is a representative parliamentary. What this means is that the people of Turkey regularly hold public voting for who they wish to run the country. In return for being elected to public office these elected officials have the job of providing services and implementing laws in order to better the lives of their people. In essence, the government works for the people. Turkey is a Middle Eastern country and does have a small oil reserve. According to the 2012 country reports, Turkey's oil reserves number approximately 288,400,000 barrels. Without amount of oil, Turkey's daily oil production is roughly about 50,000. In order for the government to make any money off of the oil that is produced, the country has a small exporting business to foreign nations. Of the 50,000 barrels that are extracted daily 46,110 of them are exported (country reports, 2012). This relatively small operation is not nearly enough money for the country of Turkey to run its government with. The largest percent of revenues raised for the country is through taxation. Turkey's current income tax rate is set 35%. Additionally, Turkey has a corporate tax rate of 20% as well as a countrywide sales tax rate set at 18% (tax rates.cc). With most of the money raised by government being from the people, in addition to the institution of public elections, the country's government is constantly working in an effort to support the people of Turkey. Without the revenue raised through taxation, Turkey's government would not be able to operate. Ultimately this leads to the implementation of a government that is non-authoritarian and directly represents the people of the Turkish nation.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, does not operate under the same set of circumstances. Within their country there is no requirement for anybody to pay taxes. In fact, Michael Ross points out that oilrich authoritarian regimes have held onto power essentially by brightening their populations with little or no taxes or blatant handouts (Ross, Arab spring, P. 3). Mr. Ross continues on by explaining how Saudi Arabia was able to give its citizens upward of $136 billion in wage increases throughout the public sector, housing subsidies and unemployment (Ross, Arab spring, P. 3). The Saudi Arabian government is able to do this purely on revenue raised through nationalized oil production. Saudi Arabia is one the largest oil reserves in the world containing a staggering 262,700,000,000 barrels of oil. From that massive reserve Saudi Arabia produces 9,475,000 barrels of oil per day. Of that nearly 9.5 million barrels of oil they produce, Saudi Arabia exports 7,920,000 barrels per day to foreign governments (country reports, 2012). According to oilprice.net, the current value of one barrel of oil is $113.43(oil-price.com). If one does the math that means that the authoritarian regime currently in charge of Saudi Arabia makes $898,365,600 per day from oil exportation. This massive amount of money is more than enough for the Saudi Arabian government to maintain power and control in their country. Much like the lack of oil revenue in Turkey, this massive amount of oil has a profound effect in Saudi Arabia. This money allows an authoritarian regime to continually buy off any opponents they might have to their political philosophy. Education While oil-rich countries devote a massive amount of their time and money into maintaining their authoritarian regime, there is another affect the oil has on numerous Middle East countries. The state of educational system within the Middle East is lacking. Many of the Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes do not want their people to be fully educated. In fact, with the focus so strongly placed on the oil industry, the leaders of authoritarian regimes simply desire for their people to get a basic education so

that they may successfully support the nationalized oil industry. This directed path of education stifles a student's ability to explore different avenues in their professional life. Imagine that you live in a country where the primary purpose of establishing a national economy is to support an oil industry. Every individual that went to school in that country would want to work for the government by supporting the national commodity trade. By again looking at both Saudi Arabia and Turkey, these educational stats only support this claim. It is not a disputed fact that individuals that do not get a quality education are less inclined to strive for a profession that encourages individual thinking or dynamic change. Within Saudi Arabia, the majority of people are employed and paid by government. The government gets all the money and power from its oil industries. This being the case, it only makes sense that the Saudi Arabian educational system would be structured throughout individuals that can support the production and exportation of oil. While it is true that the vast majority of individuals do get a standard education up to a secondary level, higher-level college education is not necessarily a valued commodity for the vast majority of jobs within the oil industries. According the nation master.com, the enrollment numbers of people who enrolled in a college level education numbers 525,344(nation master.com). Additionally the enrollment ratio of students who are currently in a secondary level education is 51.1% (nation master.com). From these statistics one can understand why the literacy rate in Saudi Arabia of people age 15 years or older currently stands at 21.3%(nation master.com). These numbers are not reflective of a poor educational system. These statistics are the direct results of authoritarian regime that does not want its people to engage in higher-level thinking of ideas that might conflict with its established doctrine. The Saudi Arabian government has specifically designed the educational system within its country to stifle the prospect of any oppositional force that might come to be.

While the Saudi Arabian government chooses to hinder their people from obtaining quality education, the government within Turkey continues to encourage the higher-level thinking of students currently within the educational system. The Turkish government has pushed for public policies that encourage their citizens to reach out and participate in education that extends beyond the standard level. The current level of Turkish students that are involved in higher-level college educations ranks three times more than that of Saudi Arabia(nation master.com). This dedication to the enhancement of education within their country has led to a national literacy rate of 87.37% (nation master.com). The fundamental difference between these two governments is that the Turkish want their citizens to continually grow and support the best interests of their country. Now this is designed with a degree of selfishness involved. Since the Turkish government is primarily funded by individuals who hold jobs and support the national economy, it isn't Turkey's best interest to have freethinking individuals constantly innovating the various job market within their country. They're Democratic system of governance directly enables individuals to seek out and obtain quality education in order to benefit themselves and their country like. Military Power The last major oil effect that is prevalent within the Middle East can be seen through the eyes of their military. Another undisputed fact is that governments and countries who maintain a strong military are less likely to have to worry about an internal opposition striving to forcefully take power away from the established government regime. Professor Ross explained this point when he stated that "oil wealth allows autocrats to lavishly fund and buy the loyalty of their Armed Forces" (Ross, Arab spring, P. 3). This is a point that only makes sense if a country is under authoritarian rule. Within a democracy, if the citizens of a nation are angry they simply can vote out the individual they do not wish to have in power. However, if an authoritarian regimes in control of the country the only way to show that you as a citizen

are not happy with the current way the country is utilizing its power is through popular uprise. These individuals who are in opposition with the current government regime do not have free speech or voting rights to peacefully engage in a political debate. Instead, these individuals are forced to engage in violent outbreaks. In response to these flare-ups of violent opposition, the authoritarian government can simply bring in their well-funded military to put down the violence. To examine this final oil effect on the Middle Eastern country, look at the military forces within both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The Turkish government maintains it modest military force. These forces include the Turkish Land Force, Turkish Naval Force and the Turkish Air Force. The missions and responsibilities of the Turkish Armed Forces are specifically listed within the Constitution of Turkey. These missions include "reacting against new security problems" and "ensuring the security of Turkey against internal and external risks" (allaboutTurkey.com). By Turkey establishing rules and regulations on the establishment and maintenance of their Armed Forces, the Turkish military is limited in power and maintains for the sole reason of self-defense. The Turkish government spends approximately 5.3% of the gross domestic product toward the maintenance of their military sector. What this equates to is only about 3.2% of their total GDP (nation master.com). In comparison to other Middle Eastern countries, Turkey's military strength is of modest size receiving modest funding. Every country needs to have a military force in order to protect itself from the possibility of another nation state violating their sovereignty in an act of aggression. However, the Democratic power of Turkey does not have the need to have an overly powerful aggressive military force. Rather, the representative democracy that Turkey has put in place allows citizens to express their political desires through nonviolent actions in a legal manner. Moreover, the Turkish government encourages the expansion of ideas and implementation of new and innovative ways to govern.

On the other hand, the military forces established by the authoritarian regime with and Saudi Arabia, are quite well-funded and much less strict. The Saudi Arabian military includes a national Army, Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Force, National Guard and Ministry of Internal Forces. There is little military structure as far as rules and regulations are concerned. Instead of establishing a national Constitution that describes the mission of the Saudi Arabian military, the ruling family within the authoritarian regime funds and directs the actions of the military. Currently, Saudi Arabia spends 10% of the gross domestic product on military expenditures. These numbers include $838 million in conventional arms imports and nearly $833.75 per capita for military ventures (nation master.com). With this large amount of money being pumped into the national military, the ruling authoritarian family essentially has bought the loyalty of their soldiers, sailors and airmen. In 2011, a small group of citizens took to the streets in an attempt to voice their opposition to political policies imposed by the ruling family. The Saudi Arabian military forces were ordered to stop the uprising. The Saudi Arabian armies proved relatively willing and able to suppress them (Ross, Arab spring, P. 3). The authoritarian establishment specifically utilizes revenue raised from a vibrant oil industry to entice, create, train and well-equip a force that ensures their continued existence as though ruling regime of the country. This exploitation of the national military force is reminiscent in many Middle Eastern authoritarian governments. With Saudi Arabia outspending Turkey by 120% in regard to establishing a military force, it is clear that oil money has enabled the blatant exploitation of military forces in an effort to hinder the efforts of oppositional ideas and groups.

Summary
Within this paper I had taken a detailed look at two possible reasons for the prevalence of authoritarian governments in Middle Eastern countries. In effort to thoroughly examine this topic, I briefly described authoritarianism and the types of governments that are established under this idea.

Next, we look at two possible options of why the Middle East is prone to authoritarian rule. These two factors were the Muslim religious faith of Islam and the effects of a robust oil industry. To provide specific examples, we have looked at both the Middle Eastern countries of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Through a detailed examination of the effect that Islam has on the establishment and continuation of authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes, we conclude that the Muslim religion has little or nothing to do with authoritarian ideals. While look at Saudi Arabia does show the government utilizes the Islamic faith to perpetuate its own authoritarian policies, a look at Turkey shows that Islam is embraced and supported in a fully democratic society. Major factors of location, percentage of Muslim believers and social aspects of the religion were examined. All of these factors were similar in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. However Saudi Arabia maintains an authoritarian absolute monarchy while Turkey has established a representative democracy in the form of Parliament. Hence, having a large Muslim population and a strong belief in Islam does not directly relate to the establishment of authoritarian rule in the Middle Eastern country. In stark contrast to the findings regarding Muslim worship, the effects of a robust oil industry appears to demonstrate a strong correlation with the establishment of authoritarian government. Three specific effects of large oil-producing countries were looked at. The first of these was the amount of production and revenue that the Middle Eastern country obtained through oil production and exploitation. In Turkey we found that while a small percentage of their gross domestic product does come from the production and exportation of oil, the vast majority of the countries revenue is dependent upon taxes raised from their citizens. And Saudi Arabia, there are no tax revenue generated because 100% of their GDP comes from their oil industry. The effect of this is that in the Democratic country of Turkey the government is supported by the people. However, the citizens of Saudi Arabia are dependent on the nationalized oil industry. This dependence of the people on their government only

furthers the reach of established authoritarian regime. The second oil affect examined within this paper was education levels in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In regards to education we find that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia provide a standard education for all their citizens. However, the lower support for college and higher percentage of illiteracy in Saudi Arabia can be specifically attributed to the country's desire to mitigate opposition in the form of social change. Instead of pushing for innovation and new ideas, the authoritarian government of Saudi Arabia wants to increase the workforce of the oil industry while simultaneously preventing ideas that clash with their regimes policies to be taught. The third and final effect studied was the military forces within both countries maintain an army, navy and air force. The major difference between the two is the utilization of the forces for different purposes. Saudi Arabia spends six times more dollars per capita than Turkey does on their military forces. This is done for two reasons. The Saudi regime first wants a well-trained and well-equipped force that secondly can ensure the protection of the authoritarian ruling family. While the Turkish military has rules and regulations specifically written out within their established Constitution, the Saudi government utilizes their military as a private enforcement company to ensure the survival of the regime and the distraction of any opposition. In conclusion I find that the establishment of a robust oil production and exportation business is the primary factor in which hinders the countries of the Middle East from embracing Democratic change. It has been shown that a belief in the Islamic faith simply has no bearing on the governmental structure of the Middle Eastern countries. As long as Middle Eastern authoritarian rulers continue to raise large sums of money with the intent to stifle the education of their citizens and grow their military forces into a private enforcement unit, authoritarian rule will maintain and strength throughout the vast majority of countries within the Middle East.

Você também pode gostar