The thing that makes authoritarianism superficially attractive in the Middle East is the absolute lack of anything even loosely resembling civil-society institutions of the sorts that are ubiquitous in Western societies. Why allow basic freedoms when the people aren't going to use them for the good of society? It's a vicious cycle and a very thorny issue to address.
Ironically enough, the closest thing these folks get to actual civil society, is their religious institutions - the mosques, the madrassas and so forth. This also makes Islamic fundamentalism a lot more seductive to them than it might otherwise be, because in many ways they experience religion as the best working, least corrupt, etc. part of their society, and they naturally seek something that can replicate that relative openness and lack of corruption across the board.
You are looking at this the wrong way: no civil society exists because there are no freedoms. The correct question to ask is: why participate in civil society if the president can just shut it all down after a bad breakfast?
Counterexample time! Lebanon and Tunisia. I’m from Tunisia, so I can talk about that a bit more if you like, but a strong civil society has rapidly formed since the 2011 revolution. Granted, we have had a relatively active civil society pre-2011, but it has flourished immensely post-2011.
I think you’re also a bit off with your point on why Islamic fundamentalism becomes attractive. Yes, in many Muslim countries, mosques become the only refuge for discourse, but Islamic fundamentalism typically comes to the forefront only when these freedoms are clamped down on. People who used to seek refuge from autocracy in the mosque now find that all doors have been shut in their faces, so they naturally look for alternatives. Unfortunately, some end up veering towards extremism...
> ... but Islamic fundamentalism typically comes to the forefront only when these freedoms are clamped down on.
That probably describes Tunisia and Lebanon - I find it very unlikely that it's an accurate description of the average Middle-Eastern country, even of Egypt. Never mind elections, even freedoms can be almost irrelevant when, by and large, people have never even come close to knowing a free society and what the basic values of one look like. A truly free people doesn't elect the frickin' Muslim Brotherhood to run their country!
Exactly. This was the tragedy of post-"Arab Spring" Egypt: the country had been run as a military dictatorship under a permanent "state of emergency". In 2011 it was overthrown by what we might glibly call Twitter liberals, through the takeover of Tahrir Square and struggles with the police.
Reasonably free and fair elections were held for the first time. And who did the people elect? The Muslim Brotherhood, an international illiberal Islamist group in favour of mandatory veils.
So there had to be another military coup, the establishment of a constitution banning religious parties, and another go at elections.
Ah, the good old Western pundit view of the Egyptian revolution. I was waiting for this!
There had to be a coup? What happened to elections? And it is unfair to omit the fact that said coup involved a brutal massacre.
If you don’t deny that the elections were free and fair, then it is none of your business who the citizens of a sovereign state decide to elect. This is democracy 101.
Ironically enough, the closest thing these folks get to actual civil society, is their religious institutions - the mosques, the madrassas and so forth. This also makes Islamic fundamentalism a lot more seductive to them than it might otherwise be, because in many ways they experience religion as the best working, least corrupt, etc. part of their society, and they naturally seek something that can replicate that relative openness and lack of corruption across the board.