Adaptable Autocrats: Regime Power in Egypt and Syria

Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures

by Stacher Joshua

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 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 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.

Genres: Egypt, Politics

Paperback

First published April 25, 2012

Reviews

[Phillip · Rating 4 out of 5]

For full disclosure, I didn't read all of this book because the focus (the Arab Spring in 2010-11) is much later than what I'm researching for (a 1970 play). Basically Stacher argues that the political situations in Egypt and Syria were quite different before the Arab Spring, but the power structures in each country effectively managed to maintain the status quo despite some changes. Stacher argues that Egyptian political power was centralized because the nation is relatively homogenous, has a distinct language, and unified around Nasser and the military. Syria, by contrast, had decentralized power, with a number of regional, ethnic, and religious forming a kind of coalition with competing interests somehow managing to produce a kind of stability. When the Arab Spring protests hit, Egypt and Syria took different approaches to the protests. Egypt was able to replace Mubarak with relative ease by installing a new ruling council--but there was little structural reform or substantive change to the political system under Mubarak. Because power was centralized and authority well vested in a ruling elite, it was comparatively easy to swap one leader for another leader. Syria, on the other hand, faced the problem that if any member of the governing coalition toppled it would destabilize the already insecure system. For this reason, the government met the protests with violent force in an attempt to repress them completely. Without the easy ability to make adjustments from a centralized power position, the Syrian government needed to violently prevent change in order to preserve its existence.

[Nora · Rating 5 out of 5]

good, big picture analysis. foundation for current events in the middle east.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting lens on the Arab spring