Following prominent calls on Middle East scholars to enter ‘the era of post-democratization’ the debate on political rule in the Middle East has in recent years been enriched with its own ‘post’-concept. Usually this prefix is used to describe a condition, which on the one hand marks a break from a previous era but on the other hand is imbued with uncertainty and confusion as to what comes next. This is also the case for the current discussion about ‘post-democratization’ in Middle East scholarship and the overall aim of the collection of papers, which this paper is part of, is to contribute to the debate on the study of Middle Eastern political rule after ‘the end of the transition paradigm’, not only by providing a more self-critical and nuanced understanding of the post-democratization trend but also through an identification and discussion of different forms of possible future research strategies within this trend. This general problematique is further outlined in this introductory paper, which assumes the nature of a meta-study that provides a critical examination of the ‘post’ in post-democratization by asking ‘where do we come from’, ‘where we are now situated’ and ‘where we should be going’?

After two decades as the most powerful actor in the post-Cold War international system, a potential new challenge to the United States appears to be emerging: a coalition of authoritarian states that not only opposes US diplomatic efforts but is working to establish itself as a viable counterweight to the pro-Western, liberal, and pro-democratic international order that emerged after the collapse of Communism. Regionally, this challenge is demonstrated by the efforts of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela to project power in ways that undercut the political and economic stability of neighboring states. Globally, it is manifest in deepening coordination among anti-Western authoritarian regimes with the aim of mobilizing and organizing opposition to U.S. and Western interests. Evidence in support of the existence of this global coalition of like-minded authoritarian regimes is increasingly visible yet it remains an amorphous entity, little understood and little studied. This paper attempts to draw a better understanding of these emerging global networks of authoritarian cooperation and their impact on the stability of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Specifically, it attempts to answer the following questions: What is the composition of this authoritarian coalition and what are its mechanisms of coordination? How does this network exert its influence in the Middle East? How is the emergence of this new coalition affecting the authoritarian stability in the Middle East?

This paper examines the regional dimensions of authoritarianism in the Arab world. Scholars have put forward different theories to explain the persistence of authoritarian politics in the region. While some authors have focused on political economy, others have put forward cultural, religious and international factors to account for the durability of authoritarianism in Arab states. This paper contributes to this debate by examining some of the causal mechanisms involved in the reproduction of authoritarian politics at the regional level. The paper focuses on three often neglected causal mechanisms that contribute to the reproduction of authoritarian politics in the Arab world at the regional level: 1) authoritarian cooperation, 2) authoritarian learning and 3) regional organizations. First, the paper analyzes two examples of authoritarian cooperation among Arab states. Arab Interior Ministers meet annually in Tunisia to discuss internal security matters, including internal threats to existing regimes and domestic opposition political movements. Drawing on newspaper reports and interviews with officials in several Arab states, I explore this type of cooperation and its consequences for domestic politics. The charter adopted by Arab ministers of information in February 2008 regulating satellite television broadcasting is the second example of authoritarian cooperation explored in this paper. I analyze the charter, its goals and likely consequences for press freedom in the region. Second, the paper explores authoritarian learning between Arab states. Using the recent constitutional amendments adopted in Egypt and then Tunisia and Algeria restricting independent candidates in presidential elections as an example, the paper examines how states in the region learn from each other regarding new institutional arrangements that limit political competition. Finally, the paper explores the role regional institutions such as the League of Arab States and the Gulf Cooperation Council play in the domestic politics of Arab states. I assess the consequences of these organizations on politics, the rule of law and human rights in the region. I also compare these organizations and the role they play with other regional organizations, specifically the Organization of American States, the African Union and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). By drawing on a variety of sources including newspaper reports in Arabic, French and English, primary documents such as the charter adopted by Arab information ministers in 2008 and statements by the Arab League and interviews with officials from different Arab states, this paper contributes to understanding the regional dimensions of authoritarianism in the Arab world.

Many ideological regimes exhibit dissonant institutionalization (Brumberg 2001), or the incorporation and routinization of multiple competing narratives and symbols of political community. Where electoral arenas are competitive, political elites vie with one another through the use of communicative discourse (Schmidt 2002) to present and legitimate their contesting positions to the public. Often times, these contrasting narratives paint different pictures of world politics and regional affairs. As a result, the political dynamics that occur outside of these countries are interpreted to legitimate or undermine various narratives and institutions in different ways, thus impacting the domestic political process. This paper specifically explores the ideological impact that regional dynamics have on the politics of Turkey and Iran. While most of the Middle East is comprised of authoritarian regimes that characteristically lack strong guiding ideologies, the regimes of Iran and Turkey are exceptional due to their ideological nature. Both are examples of mixed regimes, or nondemocratic regimes that hold competitive elections under the conditions of unfair competition, illiberal civil rules and/or a reserved domain of power. In Turkey, a military domain institutionalized with a Kemalist ideology intervenes in politics, and, in Iran, clerical intervention in politics is supported through Islamic ideology. Using a historical institutionalist approach, this paper argues that regional dynamics have largely been used to support the nondemocratic institutions of the Iranian regime, while they have been used to undermine those of the Turkish one. In addition, it highlights the importance of ideas in the institutionalization of state structures and how such ideas are legitimized or delegitimized under changing domestic and regional conditions.

The study of regime diffusion tends to focus on external diffusion effects that support democratic change and consolidation (Di Palma 1990; Huntington 1991; Pevehouse 2002 Levitsky and Way 2005; Brinks and Coopedge 2006). This paper brings to light regime diffusion effects that help reinforce the authoritarian political status quo. Specifically, it examines the effect of the Iraq War on opposition cohesion in Arab countries and on regime survival tactics. Using process-tracing evidence from the cases of Egypt and Bahrain, the paper highlights the contradictory impacts that the Iraq War had on the processes of political reform in the Arab world. On the one hand, the political ascendance of self-proclaimed Shi'a political groups in Iraq encouraged Shi'a opposition groups in the other countries to mobilize in demand greater political rights. On the other hand, sectarianism in the new Iraq helped crystallize sectarian differences among the opposition, and allowed regimes and their supporters to exploit these divisions to undermine the legitimacy of Shi'a political demands. Indeed, joint concerns over the US invasion of Iraq provided ideologically diverse political groups with a rare opportunity to work together to coordinate their opposition to their regimes' tacit support to the war. At the same time, evidence indicates that incumbent regimes were relatively successful in undermining the credibility of their oppositions by capitalizing on public discontent with US policies in Iraq and on the apparent overlap between the demands of their opposition and US-led democracy promotion efforts. Based on this evidence, the paper argues that the study of Arab authoritarian durability must award greater attention to the impact that troubled political transitions have had on processes of political reform in Arab countries. It also calls for a more systematic study of the opportunities and costs of cross-ideological opposition mobilization strategies that invoke Pan-Arab causes, such as Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict. A richer understanding of how these issues have impacted political reform efforts in the past may offer some useful clues about the origins of authoritarian durability in the Arab region.