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.
