The Authoritative Governance in the Middle East And the Process of “Transition to Democracy”

Duringpast two decades, “Pass through a democratic status” gave attention by mostMiddle East analysts. In fact, since the early 1980s, The Middle East and TheNorth of Africa affected by third wave of democratization effects and bothstate and society felt its impacts. Since, civil society has been promoting andstrengthening, from one hand, and sovereign governments gradually withdrawalhas begun, from the other. In a number of countries, this civil societystrength with weakness and withdrawal of sovereign governments was so that madesome analysts optimists to the coming Middle East. However, during the time, itwas revealed that the democracy in the states’ viewpoints was different fromthe Middle Eastern citizens’ democratic calls. Put it differently, thesovereign political elites sought for a democracy in which there was no changesin power relationships, and participation declined to a quantitative presencein elections - with predictable results - as well. This led the writers andanalysts to adopt more real and precise positions to obstacles of democratictransition. To better understanding, one should aware that, like any othersocial changes, this democratic transient, in each nation and country, requiresproper subjective and /or objective conditions to achieve. Proper subjectivegrounds mean penetration of democratic thoughts and notions among peoples.Besides, Proper socio-economic conditions are very important and necessary;the   increased and promoted middle-classand its independence of state is the most important indications of theseobjective situations. Of course, these two positions is hard to reach, and itdoesn’t mean that this democratic transition will be occurred so fast andsimple, since, as evidently, the historical  and cultural background might appear a rigid and hard obstacle - or onthe contrary - shortens this process.