The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa

FIVE Political Openings without Patronage-Based Privatization and Single-Party Institutional Legacies

five Political Openings without Patronage-Based Privatization and Single-Party Institutional Legacies T his book has argued that single-party institutional legacies and new sources of patronage from the privatization of state assets provided MENA autocrats with tools to sustain authoritarian rule despite the implementation of multiparty politics. This chapter highlights these causal dynamics in contrasting cases and outcomes by examining the unfolding of democratization in countries that differed institutionally (none single-party regimes) from Egypt, Syria, Algeria, and Tunisia. These different countries also had other forms and timings of privatization than Egypt, Syria, Algeria, and Tunisia. In the cases discussed below, labor drove democratization, unhinged from state parties and affiliated state corporatist controls. The bourgeoisie’s roles in democratic transformations were mixed, but overall they were less willing to support authoritarian rule than in the Arab socialist singleparty republics, where they have profited handsomely from rents generated by the privatization policies of authoritarian incumbents. Democratization in Argentina After decades of multiparty liberal democracy interrupted by multiple coups, Argentina achieved democratic consolidation after 1983, with a democratic opening and breakdown of military rule. Privatization, while characterized by the same rent-seeking behavior of capitalists that occurred in Egypt, Syria, Algeria, and Tunisia, took place after the transition to democracy and under a democratic government . Privatization was undertaken rapidly and extensively between 1990 and 1992.1 194 • The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa In terms of democratization, it is commonly argued that the defeat of the Argentine military in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas War led to the collapse of the military authoritarian regime and a democratic transition in 1983.2 Countering that view are analyses arguing that labor played an important role through intensive protests, which contributed to dividing the military into hard-liners and soft-liners and propelled it to invade the Malvinas/Falklands to overcome the divisions.3 Labor protests in the view of these analysts also destabilized the military regime by demonstrating the regime’s lack of social support and inability to maintain order.4 Finally, the Argentine union movement kept pressure on the regime through mobilizations and strikes to ensure that the withdrawal of the military and transitional elections scheduled by military officers in October of 1983 would indeed occur.5 There is a long history of labor militancy and dense social networking that united the workplace and the working-class community in Argentina. Between the 1940s and the 1980s, two opposing challengers battled for political and economic control of the country. The working and middle classes, organized by unions and under the leadership of populist general Juan Peron, struggled against the military and the five coups d’etat orchestrated by them between 1943 and 1976. When there were elections, in 1946 and 1973, the Peronists were able to win and therefore favored democratic elections.6 The military regime that took power in the 1976 coup harshly repressed labor and entered into a “dirty war” against urban guerrillas that killed up to thirty thousand people.7 They had a political goal to decapitate the combative labor leadership and pursue economic liberalization policies, though privatization was not an important element .8 The regime was able to replace labor leadership with a more supine group; though labor unrest was quelled for a short time, a new labor leadership emerged from the shop floor and spearheaded a more combative trade union movement.9 It is worth noting that in contrast to the political context in Egypt, Syria, Algeria, and Tunisia, where labor unions had started out as nationalist or single-party allies or creations , in Argentina the opposition Peronists had established the state corporatist system. Partly for that reason, the military was never able to fully establish state control over the trade union movement.10 The more independent labor movement in Argentina mounted a general strike in 1979, and by the eve of the invasion of the Malvinas/ Political Openings without Patronage-Based Privatization • 195 Falklands in 1982 labor was in an openly offensive mode and demanded full democratization.11 They were joined by the lower middle classes, a phenomenon that recreated the previously successful Peronist coalition. In addition to taking the initiative in mobilizing opposition to the military regime in Argentina, labor groups attempted to coordinate opposition with other social sectors. Business groups were divided about this push for democratic transformation.12 Small and medium manufacturers that were exclusively oriented toward the domestic...