As concerns Middle Eastern regimes in the most general sense, there are a few noticeable patterns. However, there are some regimes that existed historically during this period that no longer exist. Therefore the dates of applicability for each of the following systems are given.

1) Turkish Wilayat (1300s-1923): The Ottoman Empire, which had controlled much of the Middle East from the 1500s up to its dismemberment in 1919 and its dissolution in 1923, was organized into various Wilayats or Governantes. Each province was relatively autonomous from the Sultan's center of power in Istanbul and was ruled by Turks or Arabs nominally loyal to the Ottoman crown who were usually brought in from other regions. There was little representation for the will of the local people. There was national representation for religious minorities called Millets (Jews, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic Christians, Georgians, etc.), but by and large, these minorities were treated as second-class citizens and not afforded protections against pogroms and violence against their communities.

2) Imperial Dynasties (1570s-1979): Persia/Iran was ruled according to an Imperial Dynastic System from the Safavids through to the Qajjars and the Pahlavis. There was an increasing power of the legislature under their power, but even by 1979, the power of the legislature or Majles was minimal. What makes an Imperial Dynasty different than a Kingdom, Sultanate, or Emirate, is that Iran never made the connection between ethnicity or tribe and the right to rule or govern. The Iranian Imperial System was pluralistic and openly engaged minorities.

3) Absolute Kingdoms, Sultanates, and Emirates (1700s-Present): There is no difference between a Kingdom and Sultanate except that the rulers have different names (King vs. Sultan). An Emirate is similar to a Kingdom, but takes up less space (i.e. Principality). The Arab World has an impressive number of Absolute Monarchs (such as those who rule various Emirates like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar, those who rule Kingdoms like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and those who rule Sultanates like Oman). These monarchs control their people through direct edicts and typically run a nepotistic government.

4) Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandates (1880s-1960s): The United Kingdom colonized Egypt as early as 1888 and created protectorates throughout the Middle East at the turn of the 20th century. In the Treaty of Versailles and subsequently in the League of Nations, the British and French were granted Mandates in the Middle East. The difference between these three different imperial methods of control was really only on paper. On paper, a colony was a distant territory under the direct control of a foreign sovereign, a protectorate was a locally governed country with foreign military supervision and protection, and a mandates was a territory that was protected by a foreign government while the local peoples were to be cultivated in such a way that they could become independent. In reality, all of them more or less fit under the definition of colony and were bitterly resisted by the indigenous peoples. There was a degree of apartheid and extraterritorial law applied that effectively made citizens of the foreign Imperial Power (Britons and/or Frenchmen) accountable to a much more lax legal system than the Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Jews, and others under their control. Local peoples also had minimal participation in the government, although since minorities were permitted to participate, the participation of local minorities increased under these governments.

5) Extraterritorial Military Bases (1914-Present): The United Kingdom and France established localized regions where the laws of the United Kingdom or of France would apply as opposed to any colonial administration or local-controlled government. This typically applied in military bases and facilities in key coastal areas. The only two extant regions like this today are the British bases of Akotiri and Dhelika in Cyprus, but they used to be far more common. Law was directed and led by military leaders of the United Kingdom or France who ran the facility.

6) Parliamentary Democracy (1948-Present):Israel, Turkey, and Cyprus have governments where all citizens over a certain age can vote for political parties that occupy seats in a Parliament and create a ruling coalition. This coalition appoints the Prime Minister and takes over the affairs of governance between the fair and non-fraudulent elections. If current Tunisia continues to behave the way it did in the previous election by the time the next election comes, it too will become a Parliamentary Democracy.

7) Illiberal Democracies (1950s-Present): Many Arab Nations were Liberal Democracies on paper with guaranteed voting rights, freedoms of speech and religion, constitutions that bind the authority of the Executive. In nearly every Arab regime that this describes (like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Mubarak's Egypt, ben Ali's Tunisia) these paper rights and limitations on paper did not exist. These rulers used an apparent mechanism of democracy to perpetuate a dictatorship.

8) Constitutional Monarchies (1950s-Present):There are some Kingdoms (like Jordan and Morocco) where the King is constrained by a Constitution and requires a Parliament to pass laws. However, the strength of these Parliaments is often minimal and the politicians are typically considered untrustworthy (while the King is well-received).

9) Military Juntas (1950s-Present): Algeria and Qadhafi's Libya were organized as Military-Run Governments with the leaders officially styling themselves as Presidents but being perceived as Caudillos. As opposed to the leaders of Illiberal Democracies, even the Constitutions of their countries (which are useless) do not legitimate them in the way that Illiberal Democratic Dictators are legitimated on paper. (If we are strictly talking about the Middle East, the historic Iraqi government of Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr and that of Abd el-Karim Qasim would qualify.)

10) Compromised Government (1970s-Present): In Situations with various powerful ethnic groups like Lebanon (with its Maronite, Shiite, and Sunni communities) and Iraq with its (Shiite, Sunni Arab, and Kurd communities) there are democracies which guarantee certain positions in the government to a certain ethnic group so that one group cannot dictate policies for all the other groups. This often results in fights over census taking as that might lessen a particular group's strength and actual group on group violence to intimidate voters of one ethnic group to vote for a candidate that also supports whatever objective would help the perpetrator who are a different ethnicity. This results in very fragile agreements.

11) Theocracy (1970s-Present): This is not a unique style of government per se, but it concerns religion's central role in the management of government affairs. Theocracies can be Illiberal Democracies such as Iran. Iran is an Illiberal Democracy because although it has an elected parliament, the elections are controlled by the non-elected Supreme Council of Ayatollahs. It is a theocracy because the Ayatollahs are all clergy of the Twelver Shiite Islam religion. Saudi Arabia is also considered a theocracy, but it is a theocratic absolute monarchy because the Wahhabi Councils have strong influence with the Saudi King and in public policy.

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company