The decades-long resilience of Middle Eastern regimes meant that few
anticipated the 2011 Arab Spring. But from the seemingly rapid
leadership turnovers in Tunisia and Egypt to the protracted stalemates
in Yemen and Syria, there remains a common outcome: ongoing control of
the ruling regimes. While some analysts and media outlets rush to look
for democratic breakthroughs, autocratic continuity--not wide-ranging
political change--remains the hallmark of the region's upheaval.
Contrasting Egypt and Syria, Joshua Stacher examines how executive power
is structured in each country to show how these preexisting power
configurations shaped the uprisings and, in turn, the outcomes.
Presidential power in Egypt was centralized. Even as Mubarak was forced
to relinquish the presidency, military generals from the regime were
charged with leading the transition. The course of the Syrian uprising
reveals a key difference: the decentralized character of Syrian
politics. Only time will tell if Asad will survive in office, but for
now, the regime continues to unify around him. While debates about
election timetables, new laws, and the constitution have come about in
Egypt, bloody street confrontations continue to define Syrian
politics--the differences in authoritarian rule could not be more stark.
Political structures, elite alliances, state institutions, and governing
practices are seldom swept away entirely--even following successful
revolutions--so it is vital to examine the various contexts for regime
survival. Elections, protests, and political struggles will continue to
define the region in the upcoming years. Examining the lead-up to the
Egyptian and Syrian uprisings helps us unlock the complexity behind the
protests and transitions. Without this understanding, we lack a roadmap
to make sense of the Middle East's most important political moment in
decades.
