Wealth inequality and economic stagnation in MENA countries

¶ … MENA region is home to some of the richest and poorest countries in the world. For example, per capita GNI of Qatar is $80,440. For a poor country like Yemen, the per capita GNI is $1,070. One of the reasons for such differences is the production of and dependency on oil. Ironically dependency is not the main determiner of wealth in MENA as Yemen, Egypt, and Iraq have high to moderate dependency on oil for profit revenue and are the three poorest countries in MENA. This is due to lack of industrialization. Yemen although recently participating in higher oil production, is one of the least industrialized. Other MENA countries dependent on oil favor less industrialization and cultivation of mega-cities. Megacities are commonplace in several MENA countries.

While megacities seem like a step towards progress and economic development, the majority of these cities from shortage of housing, high population density, polluted air, lack of clean water, heavy traffic, and inadequate sewage. Along with poor city planning, most of the population in MENA countries are very poor with only a few holding most of the country's wealth. With most of the wealth going to a small percentage of the population, they hold a lot of power. This leads to corruption of the government, of the police force, and of politicians. This is why democracy and economic development has remained at a standstill in most MENA countries. Another contribution to income inequality is the major size of the 'informal economic sector' in various MENA nations. These along with the spring of economic liberalization programs in the 1990's has led to a power shift from the government to small groups of economic elites that have close ties with rulers.

Political democratization often means a redistribution of not just power, but of wealth as well. It is no wonder the wealthy groups of MENA countries will never support political democratization. They want to retain their power, influence, and money at all costs. Democracy gives people a voice and demands the money to be redistributed to spark creation of a robust middle class. With the way the wealth is distributed now, it would mean an end to the power of the wealthy elites.

With the majority of the population remaining impoverished it creates a double-edged political effect. Unequal income distribution increases discontent and disillusionment with state policies. (Shambayati)[footnoteRef:1] It also leads to little to no government regulation where income from the elites remains unregulated and untaxed. Work that is available for the impoverished populations comes with poor working conditions and no labor unions. [1: Shambayati, Hootan. "The Rentier State, Interest Groups, And The Paradox Of Autonomy: State And Business In Turkey And Iran." Comparative Politics 26.3 (1994): 307. Web. 16 June 2016.]

Another important factor that impedes economic development in MENA countries is Islamic practices. Islam discourages a rational secular mindset and independent reasoning, but encourages arbitrary rule. Along with this. Islamic inheritance laws divide inherited property among all children, preventing capital accumulation. This is not to say the Muslim world is not wealth because of Islam. It outperformed the non-Islamic world for centuries.

However, war is another reason why the Muslim world has remained economically underdeveloped. With high military expenditures diverting money away from social and economic development, countries like Iraq and Palestine have suffered. Simply put, poor governance and low accountability fueled by uprisings, war, and powerful and wealthy elites has led to economic underdevelopment in MENA. While oil is an important source of income in several MENA states, most of it is automated, leaving little jobs available for people within the country. Furthermore, oil production fuels foreign interest with British and American groups seeking to take the oil from the countries. Along with foreign interest, 'Dutch Disease' takes place making imports cheaper and exports more expensive.

2.

Oil dependency has created nations in MENA that depend largely on one source for profit. The source (oil) is fully automated and generates vast wealth for a small percentage of the population. This small percentage corrupts the government in order to maintain their power. Islam also plays a role because of the favoring of arbitrary rule. 'Dutch disease' also takes place making it cheaper to import rather than locally produce and export. These are some of the reasons why there is economic underdevelopment in the MENA region. However, looking at is from a purely religious standpoint, Islam and the people's refusal to separate church and state has led to major difficulties. For example, while 85% in each category of a 2006 survey revealed respondents support of democracy in countries within the MENA region, this falls to procedural democracy and not necessarily liberal democracy. This has to do with certain beliefs fueled by Islamic faith. Liberal views like abortion rights, gender equality, and homosexuality are not in tune with the beliefs instilled from Islam. This is why groups like the Muslim Brotherhood win political elections as they represent beliefs in line with the beliefs of Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood is widely regarded throughout MENA, but especially in Egypt, as one of the most significant and original Islamist activist organizations. Their original purpose was to fight British imperialism but eventually became an international spiritual movement. It main goal changed and became one of building Islamic individuals who will then build an Islamic state. Founded by Hasan al Banna in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood grew in popularity over the decades.

They were to support more radical interpretations of Jihad, and regenerated Egypt social and politically to Islam, using Islam as the guiding force. While they championed for positive social reform, they also championed for Islam to merge into government rule. This is because of their beliefs in the state being created in order to implement Shari'a and the role of the government and the community ruling through Islamic law.

Sharia law has and remains a constraint on state power by delineating boundaries and defining purpose. Under Sharia law, it is difficult to see what laws can be followed if they are made without Islam being the foundation under its creation. This means that although the Brotherhood supports a specific definition of democracy, Sharia and the fundamentals of Islam create hurdles.

Some of these hurdles lie in egalitarian inheritance meaning all children could claim inheritance after parents die leading to a reduced accumulation of wealth. There is little interest in bank loans, and belief in importation of exportation. Islam also forced people to remain in a system that gave them little options whereas the Christians and Jews chose financial options that best suited them. "Likewise, Middle Eastern Muslims fell behind the region's nonMuslims because the latter found it easier, partly as an unintended consequence of Islamic law itself, to overcome the economic handicaps rooted in that stagnation and begin benefiting from advances generated elsewhere." (Kuran 89)[footnoteRef:2] Looking back at the origins of Islam, Islam's economic institutions did not arise all at once during Prophet Muhammad's lifetime. Very little in relation to economic institutions were even mentioned within the Qur'an. It was not until 1000 A.D. there were central Middle Eastern economic institutions firmly in place. That means classic Islamic law has no room for corporations with commercial partnerships typically comprising of one sedentary investor who financed tradition missions executed by one traveling merchant. (Kuran) Ultimately, Islamic law is not well equipped to handle the accumulation of wealth because it was created during a time when economic development was not fully formed. Along with this, the views of Islam are not conducive to the political views of a democratic state. [2: Kuran, Timur. "Why The Middle East Is Economically Underdeveloped: Historical Mechanisms Of Institutional Stagnation." Journal of Economic Perspectives 18.3 (2004): 71-90. Web.]

3.

Violent nationalist groups like PLO, radical revolutionary groups like Kurdish Workers' Party, and transnational groups like al-Qaeda and 'Islamic State' appear the same, however are very different because of the dissimilar goals and objectives they have. To begin groups like Islamic State (IS) or al-Qaeda exist via exploitation of wars, geopolitical upheaval, and state collapse within the Middle East. They are the groups that pose the biggest threat inside and outside the Middle East due to their increase in membership and power. Unlike the other groups mentioned they use a more militaristic and often violent approach to achieve their means, seeking to disrupt and seize instead of create order and stability.

While al-Qaeda has had its history with bloodshed, IS changed and reshaped the jihadist landscape, using a bloodier and more disruptive strategy than their al-Qaeda predecessors. They are used not only as a means of social mobility, but of also protection and a potential apocalyptic battle with the West. With a majority Iraqi leadership, they are the result of continuous war in Iraq and a desire to turn the tides for those suffering under poverty and tyranny. Created from a sense of victimization across the Sunni Arab world, IS means to unite all Araba regardless of nationality to fight against what they perceive are threats to their world. (ICG)[footnoteRef:3] [3: ICG,. "Exploiting Disorder." Atavist. N.p., 2016. Web. 16 June 2016.]

They are representative of the radicalization of countries, villages, and individuals. The group is a bi-product of the many social injustices suffered and experienced in the 2011 Arab revolutions. The other groups seek to create unity for one specific population whereas IS seeks to create unity across the Muslim world, accomplishing their objectives any way they can. With their origins being different and lending more towards aftermaths of battle, this is another key difference. While IS seeks to provide victory for all Muslims, the PLO or Palestine Liberation Organization seeks to promote a massive terrorist campaign to gain freedom and rights for the Palestinians. PLO was formed in 1964 during Cairo's Arab League Summit. Its original goal was liberation of Palestine via armed struggle at the same time seeking to destroy Zionism within the Middle East. It was not long before PLO split into various factions: DFLP, PFLP, PFLP-GC, and Fatah.

Later on in 1967, the goal changed from the liberation of Palestine to the destruction of Israel showing their interests were single-minded with only seeking liberation or destruction of or for a specific group/nationality. Eventually, the group sought diplomatic approaches through Yasser Arafat after ship hijackings and achieved partial self-rule because of it.

Kurdish Worker's Party of PKK has Marxist-Leninist roots and was formed in 1978, calling for an independent Turkish State in Turkey. Just like PLO, PKK wanted independence and self-autonomy for the majority Kurds in south and south east Turkey. They tried like the other two groups to achieve their means through violence, but did not achieve much success, rolling back on demands in the 1990's. "In the 1990s, the organization rolled back on its demands for an independent Kurdish state, calling instead for more autonomy for the Kurds.

It suffered a major blow in 1999 when its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was arrested and jailed for treason." (BBC News)[footnoteRef:4] [4: BBC News,. "Profile: Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) - BBC News." BBC News. N.p., 2016. Web. 16 June 2016.]

They only had minor success when they employed truces or ceasefires as their violent tactics only led to Turkey seeing the PKK as a terrorist organization. Eventually violence again erupted in recent years with the PKK fighting Turkish and IS forces. This group exists to protect the rights of Kurdish people and in doing so sparked a civil war with Turkey. All three groups seek freedom and independence, however each one for different reasons and for certain groups.

4.

Iran is a fairly developed country in the Muslim world. That being said, it is under authoritarian rule. And while it exists under constant opposition, Iranian activists and the desire of civilians to have certain liberties had led to elections being held in Iran. That is because civil society remain highly developed in Iran. "During the twentieth century, the environment showed a 'willingness' to establish civil society organizations and associations." (Lust 270)[footnoteRef:5] Meaning Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was replaced after he was overthrown by (at first) a liberal parliamentary regime, creating about radical political change and sowing the seeds for elections to take place in the country. [5: Lust, Ellen. The Middle East. 13th ed. SAGE, 2013. Print.]

As Lust points out, civil society was a main reason for political change within the country. That being said, the ongoing election results led to increase in freedom of expression in Iran with Khatami taking office. That ended quickly however, as the Iranian state began curtailing freedom of the press and saw further curtailment of freedoms from the election of President Ahmadinejad. The 2009 presidential protests led to even greater restriction of freedom as thousands of protestors were rounded up, imprisoned, and murdered.

In the end, while there is a greater development of civil society that had led to elections being held in Iran, Islamic law rules all and keeps freedoms from increasing to a point where issues like women's rights are kept from being fully explored and realized. Repression still exists within the Iranian state. Some elected officials made progress toward reform. While others regressed back to Islamic rule.

Iran is a country that has political parties and seeks to allow its people some democratic freedoms. However, these freedoms must fall in line with the Islamic revolution. If they do not, they are quickly curtailed.

Political parties remain weak in the Arab world for several reasons. The first reason is their inability to formulate encompassing and wide issue-oriented outlooks or policies. Numerous political parties remain tribal, narrow, kin-based, and personalistic lending to a clientelistic distribution model instead of constituency interest aggregation. Furthermore, any parties formed in the Arab Spring are new and inexperienced, emerging from authoritarian environments that experienced suffocated political activity absent of well-developed political platforms that appeal to the population. Although this trend appears through the Muslim world, Libya's voters elected a non-Islamist party in the election of July 2011. (Kenney)[footnoteRef:6] [6: Kenney, Karen Latchana. Iran. Edina, Minn.: ABDO Pub. Co., 2011. Print.]

Typically, populations under authoritarianism pose a major challenge to reach out to when it comes to political party appeal. There are several reasons for this. "First, because of weak legislatures, political parties have been unable to influence meaningful policy changes. Second, because parties are incapable of influencing policy, they remain key sources of patronage and connections to government services." (Lust 254) Aforementioned lack of trust in political parties can be attributed to low parliamentary efficacy and autonomy "Parliaments remain weak because they are not authorized to design, pass, and implement policies without the heavy-handed role of the regime. As such, political parties in authoritarian Arab countries have become vehicles of clientilistic redistribution, agents that promote personalistic ties and relations." (Lust 256) Along with lack of trust comes lack of motivation. Voters have motivations that often forgo parties. Jordan presents a good example. Voters there vote in order to gain access to state resources, leveraging more benefits from current regimes. 90% of Arab citizens held on to the belief that wasta was more important in securing jobs than political parties.

5.

Religion plays a major role for most in the Middle East. For example, Muslim take classes in Islamic upbringing and Islam with non-Muslims being offered lessons in Islam. Countries that are Muslim also stressed the significance of religion in constructing the citizenry. "For example, according to a 1988 law the educational philosophy of the kingdom involves belief in God; belief in the lofty example of the Arab nation; and Islam as an intellectual and behavioral system that respect the person and values the place of reason." (Lust 570) While some countries opted for secular and nationalist left, throughout the 1970's and 1980's such activity waned and instead as replaced with religious activities and a religion-oriented perspective.

Parties like the Muslim Brotherhood grew both in size and power as Sharia law became the law of Islam and most countries in the Middle East. In recent years Freedom and Justice Party along with the Muslim Brotherhood and Rash Ghannushi's Ennahda have won several political elections amongst the emergent democracies of Tunisia and Egypt. (Sarfati)[footnoteRef:7] This is partly due to the large amount of civil unrest in these countries and the belief that Islam will help create order amongst the chaos. [7: Sarfati, Yusuf. Mobilizing Religion In Middle East Politics. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Print.]

Islamism or political Islam emerged in the Arab world in the 1980's due to civil unrest, sparking assassinations like that of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat, various bombings, armed conflict, and kidnappings in Egypt, Algeria, and Lebanon. These acts were not only seen as justified through an interpreter's version of Islam, but also served to unite a people that felt desperate and at a disadvantage. Islam like most other religions, serves a means of unifying people and bring about change and order. This is not to say however, that Islamists cannot find positive outcomes from a democracy.

Religion plays a role in Islamist action. However, moderate Islamists maintain certain ideals that can only be achieved through "long-term education, social and economic engagement, constituency building, and advocacy." (Brown and Shahin) It is through the radical end that violence tends to spread. Moderate Islamists preach democratic fundamentals. "Whereas moderate Islamists stress that change will come about gradually, peacefully, and with mass support, and indeed largely urge full participation in political processes." (Brown and Shahin)[footnoteRef:8] By moderate Islamists believing in democratic fundamentals, democracy can emerge and religious political parties that support such ideals can and will promote democratic action amongst their respective public. [8: Brown, Nathan J and Emad Eldin Shahin. The Struggle Over Democracy In The Middle East. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010. Print.]

However, radical Islamists are the ones that post the greatest threat to democracy. They believe the violence they exercise is justified and can therefore do what they feel necessary to continue their aims. That is why groups like the al-Qaeda felt they were able to take control of certain areas through violence in order to do what they felt was right. Radical Islamists will change laws to suit their needs and provide the logic that it is seen in the Qur'an. Cairo, Egypt, in 2013, saw the power struggle of the Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and their attempts to remove any Sectarian influence.