States Do Not Just Fail and Collapse: Rethinking States in the Middle East

Abstract

The Arab Spring reinforces the argument that there is a need for a more comprehensive classification of states. The events that took place in early 2011 serve to show why certain states have developed as they have. Much of Western scholarship has failed to conceptualize this aspect of statehood and has taken Max Weber's ideal-typical state as the holder of the monopoly of violence, seen as legitimate by all its people as a given. The debates have been limited to two ideal types: the strong, legitimate, and democratic state (in Western Europe and North America), and the failed and authoritarian state (in the Third World, mainly in Africa) plagued by insecurities and instability. States that fit neither characterization, like most Middle Eastern states, have not been adequately treated in the debate. These are neither failed states, nor are they fully democratic. Middle Eastern states are both strong in the area of security and coercion and weak in the area of democratic representation and legitimacy, and hence fill a middle ground. But as the Arab Spring shows, this is not a permanent or viable situation, and changes can be expected. By using a more nuanced model for states, we can further understand current developments in the Middle East and infer possible trajectory of state transformation.