Factors that Determine Regime Stability

Introduction

Political stability is a concept that is often discussed as an extremely valued condition because it brings about a situation where there is good political development. Instability, on the other hand, is considered to come about because of a lack of political development on the part of the state involved. This project presents a case study of the determinants of regime stability with specific reference to the Middle Eastern countries of Egypt and Iran, on one hand, and Mexico on the other.

Hypothesis

Most definitions of regime stability tend to be based on the prominence of regularity which has a positive effect on the system of government involved, and fail to consider that stability depends on the unique circumstances facing each regime.

Definition of key concepts

Regime – a government, especially one that is considered authoritarian.

Stability – the state of being stable, in this case political or concerning government.

The justification for dependent variable: positive representations of regime stability

A considerable number of studies present regime stability as the having a positive effect on the system of government involved. It is a means through which governments are assessed by internal actors and brings about a situation where there is the advancement of policies towards such regimes by external actors.

The justification for independent variable

Regime stability is dependent on the prevailing political conditions at home. Some regimes might seem to be highly stable yet prove to be quite vulnerable in the long run. Moreover, those that are seen as being highly volatile end up proving more durable.

Other significant variables

Lack of democratic space: despite the relative stability of a regime, there are instances where the population might end up revolting because they do not participate in politics.

Slow move towards change: the world is rapidly changing and this process has also come into politics. Lack of political reforms could lead to regime instability.

Influence from external actors: there might develop a situation where external actors seek to influence internal events, leading to considerable instability.

Review of Studies on the Topic

The belief in political stability is one that has for the most part promoted the policies of most countries towards others. This is because stability tends to be given more prominence than any other aspect of politics because it enables the achievement of goals that would otherwise be extremely difficult to bring about. Therefore, there is a constant need by countries, especially those that are international players, to ensure that they bring about the maintenance of regime stability in order to serve their own interests (Game III, 2011). Under such circumstances, predicting abrupt political change is often an extremely difficult task because it is often influenced by the way that political analysts conceptualize regime stability. Countries such as the United States and those that make up the EU have pursued varying policies in the Middle East with the aim of promoting a situation where their interests are based on the stability of the non-democratic regimes in the region. A consequence has been that whenever political changes have taken place, they have happened in such a way that has caught them by surprise. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that there is the advancement of greater efforts aimed at bringing about a greater understanding of the stability of regimes in the Middle East and other parts of the world in order to help in the development of more effective policies. There seems to have been a failure in the foreign policies of both the United States and the EU when it comes to understanding the determinants of regime stability in the Middle East and this has been an extremely costly mistake as seen with the events of the Arab Spring and their aftermath.

Apart from the Middle East, another area of concern for the United States for decades has been Latin America (Holden & Zolov, 2000). The political instability in Latin America has been represented through the Roosevelt Corollary and the revolutionary movements that pervaded the Central American nations for decades (Ricard, 2006). A sense of urgency to ensure an understanding of the factors that lead to the development of stable political systems, especially when considering the extralegal means through which power has been seized in the history of some South American countries, has been a hallmark of American policy in the region (Hart, 1977). Despite these events, a study of the political development of Mexico can be considered an essential one when it comes to regime stability. This is because despite revolutions taking place in the country, unlike other Latin American countries, Mexico has been able to ensure that it enjoys a relatively stable political environment for more than half a century (De Janvry, Gonzalez-Navarro, & Sadoulet, 2014). Despite considerable pressure having been placed on its political system due to rapid economic growth as well as other challenges, Mexico has been able to ensure that it continues to remain stable. Under such circumstances, Mexico can be considered a country that has remained fairly stable despite facing similar challenges to its Latin American counterparts, which have not fared as well.

Presentation and Justification of Cases

Claude Ake promotes the idea that political stability is essentially the regularity in which there is the flow of political exchanges within a society (Ake, 1975, p. 273). This is especially the case considering that political stability can only come about because of the decision of members of a society to put restrictions on themselves in such a way that they conform to the limits that have been imposed on them through the expectations brought about by political roles. Moreover, there is need to ensure that there is no confusion between political stability and the lack of political change. Ernest Duff and John Mccamant define a stable political system as one that can essentially withstand change, but also within the political structure that has been developed in society (Duff & McCamant, 1968, p. 1125). Leon Hurwitz identifies five approaches to the study of political stability and concludes that the most effective is to study political stability as a multifaceted social attribute. This view sees political stability as systemic stability and is a synthesis or integration of the other approaches (Hurwitz, 1973, p. 449).

Stability is considered to be desirable for a vast number of reasons and these are based on the need to ensure that there is the provision of an advantage to external players when it comes to the predictability of government actions. The predictability of government actions can be considered to be essential in helping in the development of policy because it determines the direction that a government or regime is likely to take at certain times (Rodrik & Zeckhauser, 1988). Under such circumstances, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the advancement of a situation where external players are able to adjust their policies accordingly in order to bring about the achievement of the most advantage to themselves in their dealings with the regime. This is especially considering that dealing with a failing state can be an extremely daunting initiative, because it is often difficult to identify a counterpart that can be interacted with effectively in order to ensure that there is the establishment of strong policy initiatives. It is normal for countries to make use of a diversity of initiatives aimed at ensuring that their counterparts are able to accept their point of view and become influenced towards achieving desirable outcomes. However, in the case of an unstable regime, it becomes troublesome because the latter does not have full control over the state (Aisen & Veiga, 2013). Therefore, it becomes necessary for government to ensure that there are efforts to get as accurate an understanding of regimes and the possible risks surrounding them before undertaking to bring about a threat to their stability. The ramifications of an unstable regime can be catastrophic not only to the said state, but also to the region within which it is situated. There is need to promote the creation of a scenario where there are limited foreign interventions that might end up risking the stability of states, because regimes, especially authoritarian ones, can end up proving to be highly unstable whenever challenges by massive popular discontent.

The concept of regime stability is one that has a diversity of definitions and this creates a situation where they end up becoming quite controversial (Hurwitz, 1973). A broad definition of this concept is that it involves a situation where there is the absence of any sort of domestic civil conflict or widespread violence that might end up marring the functions of the state. Instead, the regime can be considered to be one that has essentially rid itself of instability in such a way that there are no systematic attacks on persons and their assets within the boundaries of the state. Furthermore, there is the advancement of a situation where there is need for the regime to ensure that there is the creation of an environment where it is in full control of the situation and it can enforce its will on its people. However, this definition might prove to be problematic, because there are instances where despite the political situation of a country looking stable at the moment, the entire system of governance can end up collapsing quite quickly. This means that despite there being no systematic attacks on individuals or property, the regime could actually be quite fragile; only awaiting an incident to trigger unrest and show its fragility for what it really is. An example of this situation is President Jimmy Carter in 1977 praising pre-revolutionary Iran as being one of the most stable countries in a region that was extremely troubled (Carter, 1977). At the time he made this statement, little did he know that the entire regime would end up unraveling within two years and that there would be a revolution in Iran that would overthrow the Shah. Thus, regime stability cannot be effectively defined based on the above definition because the signs of stability tend to end up actually being only a veneer that hides the decay that is actually being experienced within the political system.

Another interpretation of regime stability is one that essentially equates regime longevity with stability (Harymawan & Nowland, 2016). This is an extremely challenging definition because it involves the definition of a country that experiences constant changes in government as unstable. There is a failure to consider that there are some countries in the world that have experienced constant changes in government yet have for the most part maintained the same policies as their predecessors. Such states might even have very stable administrative systems that are not adversely affected whenever there is regime change. A country such as Italy, which had over sixty changes in government over a similar number of years, was able to maintain a fairly stable policy throughout this period without undergoing any form of instability that would have made the nation extremely vulnerable (Curini, 2011). Under such circumstances, this definition becomes redundant because there is a lack of consideration for those states that remain stable even when there is regime change. Another example is that of Belgium, which had to undergo over a year without a cabinet and would have ended up being ranked even lower that Egypt when it came to regime instability (Hooghe, 2012). However, these circumstances proved wrong because Belgium was able to ride out the storm through the ability of its institutions to not only weather the political storm, but also keep administrative activities going throughout the period. This can be compared to the uninterrupted thirty year old rule of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, which despite its longevity ended up falling within days of public protests in the country (Shehata, 2011).

Moreover, another approach to regime stability is based on the concept of lack of structural change (Maoz & Russett, 1993). This is an approach that seeks to promote the idea that a stable regime is one that essentially has the absence of internally or externally induced change in its basic configuration; resulting in a situation where it remains stable at all times. While this approach can be considered pertinent when it comes to the discussion of regime stability, it is also quite problematic because it promotes the idea of structural change, which is often quite difficult to define. Furthermore, there are instances where deep changes take place in regimes that despite the changes end up remaining quite strong to such an extent that there is a level of continuity in their economic, social, and constitutional formations (Eckstein, 1988). Therefore, the stability of regimes can be considered to be based on the unique situation of each state because there are instances where change can happen in a positive manner to such an extent that it leads to the advancement of stability rather than a failure of the regime. Furthermore, there are instances where it becomes possible for the progression of strong regimes through the development of locally induced changes that gradually bring about positive shifts in the power structure that enhance rather than break regime stability.

Speculative Conclusion

The review of literature above has shown that there is a diversity of definitions of the determinants of regime stability. This is because each regime has to be considered based on its own unique situation rather than being generalized. A study of the regimes has shown that those that seem to be the most stable could turn out to be extremely vulnerable and vice versa. It is therefore essential to make sure that the stability of each regime is studied based on its own unique development and the manner through which it has been able to develop towards the promotion of its institutions and their durability.

References

Aisen, A., & Veiga, F. J. (2013). How does political instability affect economic growth? European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 151-167.

Ake, C. (1975). A definition of political stability. Comparative politics, 7(2), 271-283.

Carter, J. (1977). Tehran, Iran Toasts of the President and the Shah at a State Dinner. The American Presidency Project, 31.

Curini, L. (2011). Government survival the Italian way: The core and the advantages of policy immobilism during the First Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 110-142.

De Janvry, A., Gonzalez-Navarro, M., & Sadoulet, E. (2014). Are land reforms granting complete property rights politically risky? Electoral outcomes of Mexico's certification program. Journal of Development Economics, 110, 216-225.

Duff, E. A., & McCamant, J. F. (1968). Measuring social and political requirements for system stability in Latin America. American Political Science Review, 62(4), 1125-1143.

Eckstein, H. (1988). A culturalist theory of political change. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 789-804.

Game III, F. G. (2011). Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 81-90.

Hart, J. A. (1977). Cognitive maps of three Latin American policy makers. World Politics, 30(1), 115-140.

Harymawan, I., & Nowland, J. (2016). Political connections and earnings quality: How do connected firms respond to changes in political stability and government effectiveness? International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 24(4), 339-356.

Holden, R. H., & Zolov, E. (2000). Latin America and the United States. A Documentary.

Hooghe, M. (2012). The political crisis in Belgium (2007–2011): a federal system without federal loyalty. Representation, 48(1), 131-138.

Hurwitz, L. (1973). Contemporary approaches to political stability. Comparative politics, 5(3), 449-463.

Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624-638.

Ricard, S. (2006). The Roosevelt Corollary. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 17-26.

Rodrik, D., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). The dilemma of government responsiveness. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(4), 601-620.

Shehata, D. (2011). The fall of the Pharaoh: how Hosni Mubarak's reign came to an end. Foreign Affairs, 26-32.