The Arab Spring has challenged the authoritarian resilience paradigm that had been dominant in academics since the early 2000s. Scholars within this paradigm focused on the lack of democracy within the region and attributed this lack to a number of factors and dynamics. This paradigm was normative in the sense that authoritarian resilience was seen as a negative and in need of change (Lob 2015). Even though as authoritarian resilience was perceived to be negative there was no expectation that any time soon things could change. Instead scholars focused more and more on the ways authoritarian rulers were able to maintain their power. As such, scholars of the region were surprised with the events of the Arab Spring as well, which they had not
…show more content…
Instead their work showed the ways regimes were able to consolidate and strengthen their power. In this sense, these analyses are still useful, as they focused on the pursuit and persistence of authoritarian stability, rather than the essentialist view that somehow these regimes would always stay in power. As such, the literature on this paradigm is still useful in examining the regimes that did witness uprisings but who were able to resist them. The question actually is whether this implies that the significance of the Arab Spring is downplayed as Cavatorta wondered (2015: 144). To the contrary, I would argue that in fact the Arab Spring may have made the rulers in this region more aware of their weaknesses and the possibility that they too could be toppled. This would lead them to attempt to strengthen their grip on society to prevent this from happening. As such the significance of the Arab Spring is not downplayed, but rather as its effect, authoritarian rulers now may hold on to their status even more than before. Heydemann and Leenders for example argued that by March 2011, authoritarian regimes in the region were using similar tactics and practices to maximize their probability of survival, which they called ‘authoritarian learning’ (2011: 651). This shows that despite the Arab Spring and maybe even because of the Arab Spring, the authoritarian resilience paradigm is still analytically useful as it can account for the tools rulers use to maintain the status
Instead their work showed the ways regimes were able to consolidate and strengthen their power. In this sense, these analyses are still useful, as they focused on the pursuit and persistence of authoritarian stability, rather than the essentialist view that somehow these regimes would always stay in power. As such, the literature on this paradigm is still useful in examining the regimes that did witness uprisings but who were able to resist them. The question actually is whether this implies that the significance of the Arab Spring is downplayed as Cavatorta wondered (2015: 144). To the contrary, I would argue that in fact the Arab Spring may have made the rulers in this region more aware of their weaknesses and the possibility that they too could be toppled. This would lead them to attempt to strengthen their grip on society to prevent this from happening. As such the significance of the Arab Spring is not downplayed, but rather as its effect, authoritarian rulers now may hold on to their status even more than before. Heydemann and Leenders for example argued that by March 2011, authoritarian regimes in the region were using similar tactics and practices to maximize their probability of survival, which they called ‘authoritarian learning’ (2011: 651). This shows that despite the Arab Spring and maybe even because of the Arab Spring, the authoritarian resilience paradigm is still analytically useful as it can account for the tools rulers use to maintain the status