An exploration of how political ethnography can contribute to the study of democracy in

the Middle East

One-Week Home Assignment

By: Sarah A. Lange

Course:

History of Research in the Middle East

Semester:

3rd- Fall 2014

Sarah A. Lange

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................... 2

2. Summaries of Anderson and Valbjørn ........................................ 2

3. Political Ethnography ............................................................... 5

4. Contribution of Political Ethnography to studying democracy in the

Middle East .................................................................................... 7

5. Conclusion ........................................................................... 10

Reference List .............................................................................. 11

Sarah A. Lange

2

1. Introduction

For the one-week home assignment I have chosen to answer question num-

ber three which reads as follows: “With a point of departure in the texts

“Searching Where the Light Shines” and “Upgrading Post-Democratization

Studies” summarize the arguments presented by Anderson and Valbjørn. In

what way can political ethnography (as discussed by the likes of Tilly (2006)

and Wedeen (2010)) contribute to such an approach to studying democracy

in the Middle East”. The analysis consists of three interlinked parts. First of

the summaries of the arguments by Anderson and Valbjørn will be provided.

They lay the foundation on how democracy has been studied so far. Then it

will be clarified by what political ethnography entails. Building on the works

by Tilly, Wedeen and possibly Nilan (2002) as well, the advantages and

disadvantages will be discussed. The final part of the analysis then combines

these two arguments and shows how political ethnography can contribute

to study democracy in the Middle East. Here the discussion will primarily

focus Asef Bayat´s (2013) argument of nonmovements. If appropriate ad-

ditional authors will be referenced in further support of the argument made.

2. Summaries of Anderson and Valbjørn

In “Searching Where the Light Shines: Studying Democratization in the Mid-

dle East” Anderson (2006) reviews 25 years of literature on how democracy

has been studied in the Middle East and thus also provides an overview as

well on how the positions also in US foreign policy have changed over time.

Throughout the text it also becomes clear that she criticises the American

debate on democratisation and the emerging one on post-democratisation

at the beginning of the 21st century. Anderson undermines her argument

by referring to some of the most known scholars of the field and what they

Sarah A. Lange

3

have argued about democracy and/or the prospects of democratisation in

the region. She argues that political scientists were puzzled by the fact that

the Middle East did not undergo a process of democratisation that happened

at the end of the Cold War at which point many Eastern and South European

countries had joined this development. This led amongst scholars to ques-

tion whether democracy should even be debated when researching the Mid-

dle East as it had proven to withstand these so-called “waves of democra-

tization” (Anderson, 2006, p. 190). Anderson then debates that the religion

of Islam was once seen as an obstacle to democratisation but as more coun-

tries outside and even in the region (e.g. Turkey and Yemen) democratised

this changed. Political scientist continued to move back and forth between

questioning why democratic regimes have not emerged and whether au-

thoritarian governments in the region possess characteristics, influenced by

social, cultural and historical dynamics that make them resistant to change,

the so-called “Middle Eastern Exceptionalism” (p.201). One of her key ar-

guments is also that political scientists has been influenced by “the norma-

tive commitment to liberal democracy” (p.205) and this has resulted in try-

ing to apply “Western categories” (p.191) to politics in the Middle East. This

thinking from a liberal point of view, “a bias towards democracy” (p.209) is

apparent in the publications and consequently has limited their contribution

to the study of democracy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in

general because other (not influenced by US policy) points of view were

neglected.

It has also become apparent that the study of democracy in the MENA fo-

cused on investigating institutional, formal politics in those countries. Based

on this assessment, Anderson forms her final key arguments. She points to

the fact that political institutions are often underdeveloped in the MENA

region. Anderson thus argues that the investigation of politics in the MENA

region would be aided if it would also be questioned of what constitutes as

politics. Based on her argument, the study of politics in the region would be

Sarah A. Lange

4

enhanced if a greater focus would be placed on how region-specific social

(e.g. sectarian differences, tribal history etc.) and economic (e.g. rentier

states) dynamics have shaped the prevalence of authoritarian regimes, “au-

thoritarian resilience” (Anderson, 2006, p.191), and thus proposed, and still

do, obstacles to democratisation. Resulting from this Anderson specifies:

“In fact, if we wish to find out why the Middle East is resistant to democra-

tization [...] We may have to search a bit more in the shadows, in the arenas

of political life less well illuminated by conventional political science” (An-

derson, 2006, p. 210). With this statement she indicates that political de-

velopments outside the official public sphere in those regimes has the pos-

sibility to give a better understanding on how to position the Middle East

and its developments in a global context.

The second text important for this paper is Valbjørn´s (2012) “Upgrading

Post-Democratization Studies” in which he focuses on the debate of post-

democratisation in the Middle East which as he early on claims needs to be

further developed. Valbjørn structured his argument as constructive critique

and response to some of Andrea Teti´s work1. He argues that attempts at

political liberalisation, which took place from the late 1980s to the early

2000s, were merely measures employed by the authoritarian governments

to preserve their regimes and consequently have not led to the establish-

ment of democracies in Arab countries. These “Lampedusan changes”

(p.28) might appear to observers on the outside as political reforms but

only serve to maintain the status quo (Valbjørn, 2012). One of his key

points is the claim that the Arab Spring has “re-politicized” (p. 25) the po-

litical sphere in the Middle East and North Africa asserting that people in

those countries have become much more political active and vocal about

their demands. This according Valbjørn poses a challenge to the scholarly

1 Valbjørn primarily refers to Andrea Teti´s “Democratization and the Middle East

in Contemporary Global Order” in Stephan Stetter (ed.) The Middle East and

Globalization, London: Palgrave-Macmillan published in 2012.

Sarah A. Lange

5

debate about the region and in referring to some of Lisa Andersons work he

consequently advocates for a move to re-define the meaning of politics. The

paths which those countries might take are hardly predicable and this is

why Valbjørn claims that these are “transitions to somewhere” (Valbjørn,

2012, p.26). This leaves more room as opposed to those political scientists

who advocate either for democratisation taking place and those who claim

that democratisation is unlikely (“post-democratisation” approach) for the

Arab countries of the MENA region. In accordance with his argument of “re-

politicization of the Arab world” (p. 30), he asserts that activism is now

visible in all part of society with even the more conservative elements rep-

resented mostly by Islamists and Salafists, who have started participating

in shaping the transitions of various countries which experience uprisings

due to the Arab Spring. Valbjørn highlights that the developments that led

to the spillover effect which characterised the Arab Spring were not neces-

sarily visible on the outside. Rather it was the “formal political scene” in the

years prior to the Arab Spring that had according to the scholarly opinion

undergone “a general de-politicization and feeling of political apathy”

(Valbjørn, 2012, p.32). Valbjørn (2012) claims that “other key dynamics

taking place below the regime-centred radar were missed” (p.32). He con-

cludes that the existing direction of studies on (post-) democratisation, Arab

politics in general, would be enhanced if the developments on the ground,

micro level, would receive greater attention.

3. Political Ethnography

Anderson and Valbjørn both have outlined how knowledge of democ-

racy/democratisation studies in the Middle East came into being, primarily

through academics who have investigated formal political scenes in the

MENA. Nevertheless, there are other ways of acquiring knowledge of this

field of study: political ethnography. Tilly (2006) and Wedeen (2010) concur

Sarah A. Lange

6

that amongst the academic community, opinions are divided what consti-

tutes political ethnography in detail. However both authors agree that the

method is interdisciplinary as ethnographers can be found in various scien-

tific fields. Baiocchi and Conner (2008) offer a basic framework as a defini-

tion: [...] political ethnography, a research method that is based on close-

up and real-time observation of actors involved in political processes, at

times even extending the definition of these processes to move beyond cat-

egories of state, civil society, and social movements” (Baiocchi and Conner,

2008, p.139). Similar views can be found in the texts by Tilly and Wedeen

who argues that “immersion in the place and lives of people under study”

(Wedeen, 2010, p.257) is an important feature of this kind of research. Tilly

(2006) highlights that interviews, active and passive observations as well

as casual conversations are some of the tools employed by political ethnog-

raphers to gather information. Participant observation is stressed to be a

notable characteristic (Wedeen, 2010, Tilly, 2006, Nilan 2002). Tilly for in-

stance points out how this and other ethnographic methods employed by a

researcher who has investigated the political and tribal dynamics in a town-

ship in South Africa revealed that the concept of democracy was understood

differently by the residents than by more affluent Caucasian citizens of the

country.

Nevertheless, ethnographic research has been criticised for not being ob-

jective and neutral enough. On the grounds of this, mainstream political

scientists have been hesitant to use ethnographic findings in their work or

to use the method themselves. Nilan (2002) and Haage (2009) state that

this critique is warranted to a certain extend. Emotions do play a notable

role in fieldwork and ethnographers cannot escape them. Haage (200)

claims that ethnographer enters a different mindset when confronted with

emotional and/or dangerous situations and environments but that, if they

are aware of their emotions, this can later be analysed from a researcher´s

perspective and thus gain more information of their investigated field. Nilan

Sarah A. Lange

7

discusses that tools such as participant observation does require a good

deal of self-control and that the researcher in question should pay attention

of not becoming too attached. The authors agree that ethnography offers

the advantage of assessing the validity of general assumptions and theories

on a more localised level. In some cases as referred to by Wedeen and Tilly,

it may also be possible to generalise some of the arguments and apply them

to a wider context. Resulting from findings like that and others exemplified

by the authors, it can be determined that ethnography as a research

method does not mean that “interpretive social science does not have to

forswear generalizations or causal explanations and that ethnographic

methods can be used in the service of establishing them” (Wedeen, 2010,

p.255).

4. Contribution of Political Ethnography to studying democ-

racy in the Middle East

Now that the key arguments of Anderson and Valbjørn have been outlined

as well as what political ethnography, this section combines the two in order

to answer the research question. As it has been assessed by Anderson and

Valbjørn, the Middle East has been attested to have a “democratic deficit”

(Anderson, 2006, p.197). The actions by some authoritarian states to lib-

eralise politics to a limited extend such as the implementation of parliamen-

tary elections in for instance Jordan turned out to be techniques of the re-

gime in question to manifest its power (Valbjørn, 2012). Nonetheless polit-

ical streams ranging from conservative to leftist politics have been made

out in those countries as political parties are present in those countries that

hold elections despite the fact that the outcome is fairly predictable in most

cases. The overviews given by Anderson and Valbjørn also make it clear

that many political scientists tend to focus their analyses of Arab politics on

Sarah A. Lange

8

what Valbjørn (2012) has critiqued as a “very narrowly regime-centered

perspective” (p. 32).

Political ethnography, as outlined previously, places its emphasis not on the

bigger picture of politics but rather the other way around. It informs of

political process by looking at it from the bottom up i.e. people and how for

instance they encounter, in this case authoritarian, regimes on a daily basis

(Baiocchi and Conner, 2008). In this regard the Asef Bayat´s (2013) “Life

as Politics” elaborates in detail on micro level developments. Bayat criticises

the tendency of scholars to view the Middle East as an entity. This perspec-

tive has led to change, that has happened and continues to do so, to being

overlooked (Bayat, 2013). Usually bigger events such as revolutions or the

uprisings of the Arab Spring bring a renewed focus on shifts in power in the

MENA region. Valbjørn pointed out that with the Arab Spring politics has

started to play a much bigger role, not only on the institutional level but

most importantly in the civil societies of the region. This view is echoed by

Bayat (2013) who refers to the widespread demands for democracy re-

flected in the protests in all countries affected by the Arab Spring since late

2010. This was also the case in those where the uprisings did not lead to a

regime overthrow such as in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

There is a common consensus that revolutions or uprising are by their very

nature are hard to foresee. Nevertheless, Bayat (2013), as has Anderson,

asserts that conventional research has mostly not taken into account that

politics also takes outside the official political realm. Bayat makes the case

for “nonmovements” (p.3) which contribute to transformation in society and

politics but on a much localised, micro level. He defines a key characteristic

of “nonmovenents” as “the collective actions of noncollective actors, tend

to be action-oriented, rather than ideologically driven; they are over-

whelming quiet, rather than audible, since claims are largely made individ-

ually rather than by united groups” (Bayat, 2013, p.21). Bayat argues that

Sarah A. Lange

9

these actors are millions of ordinary people who not necessarily belong to

a specific political stream but differ in their behaviour from the regime-ad-

vocated narrative. It is in the urban centres of the Middle East such as Cairo,

Tripoli and Tunis where nonmovements are to be found- “the urban disen-

franchised, through their quiet and unassuming daily struggles, refigure

new life and communities for themselves and different urban realities on

the ground in Middle Eastern cities” (Bayat, 2013, p.5). These huge cities,

on which streets people ultimately voiced their disappointment with their

governing regimes, are melting-pots for people from all kinds of back-

grounds and consequently political views that make daily negotiations in-

evitable. Nonmovements also can evolve into social movements but even

prior to that, the act of doing something differently than the norm, becomes

an important way of expression (Bayat, 2013). This often so entrenched in

behaviour that it is easily overlooked by someone who is unfamiliar with

local dynamics in the region. Political ethnographers can provide insights

through researching those nonmovements by visiting those urban centres

and to collect data using among others immersion and various observation

techniques. Since these nonmovements differ from each other, the re-

searcher in question would have to target a specific group and work with a

guide who knows the area (Nilan, 2002). Bayat (2013) pointed out that

even women, who chose to pursue higher education when it goes against

the narrative they live in, are part of a nonmovement, so this would be one.

Bayat argues that these nonmovements are multiple and appear in different

parts of society. Ethnographers could also obtain knowledge about these

nonmovements by getting in touch with actors that are more visible on the

political stage. Just as Bayat, Roy (2002) highlights that political move-

ments, be they secular, liberal or (post-) Islamists, are often deeply rooted

in social ones as well. For instances it has been argued that liberals in Middle

Eastern countries have had difficulties to present their ideas to the masses

(Roy, 2002). Now ethnographers can contribute to our understanding of

Sarah A. Lange

10

why that is the case through for instance analysing the language, rhetoric

use and behaviour exhibited by those actors as pointed out by Wedeen

(2010) and then compare the findings to (post-) Islamists who have been

credited with gathering political support much quicker. One might reveal

indicators to which nonmovements they belong to by observing how some

of those actors go about their daily lives, for example the people they fre-

quent with, where they live and which schools/universities they visit. Bayat

has argued that nonmovements can turn into social movements which then

pursue their goals much more openly. The events in Egypt and Tunisia as

well as in Syria have shown the significant role such social movements can

play in a country´s transition period. Furthermore Bayat argues: “In the

Muslim Middle East, initiatives for a sustained democratic reform need to

come from the region´s indigenous movements [...]” (Bayat, 2013, p.316).

Like Tilly´s (2006) South Africa example, ethnographic research about in-

digenous e.g. non-movements in the Middle East might reveal how the con-

cept of democracy is perceived on the ground influenced by specific cultural,

religious and historical factors which in turn helps to gain more knowledge

about political processes in the region. If one was to use Anderson´s (2006)

analogy this would `shed light on previously less illuminated’ realms of pol-

itics.

5. Conclusion

In the texts by Valbjørn (2012, 2014) and Anderson (2006) it has become

clear that the region has not only been characterised by its lack of demo-

cratic governments but also by the prevalence of authoritarian regimes. The

term ‘post-democratisation’ seems to imply that democratisation had be-

come highly unlikely in the Middle East and North Africa. The authors also

revealed that analyses of politics in the MENA focuses on the developments

in governments and less so on realms outside what commonly constitutes

Sarah A. Lange

11

formal politics. Valbjørn (2012) states that with wave of protests in the

course of the Arab Spring and with it a much more visible engagement and

active participation in politics has shown that these spheres should not be

left out of the analytical focus. Anderson advocates for this as well. When

Valbjørn (2012) calls for “greater attention to the interlinked and gradual

micro- and macro-level transformations” (p.32) and for “the opening of old

analytical tool-boxes” (2014, p.13), certainly this is where political ethnog-

raphy can contribute. By looking closely at the everyday lives of people and

how they encounter the authoritarian regimes it can be shown how they are

affected by structures of power (Baiocchi and Conner, 2008). As it has been

mentioned on previous pages, political ethnographic research can help to

see how theories e.g. authoritarian resilience or recombinant authoritarian-

ism holds on the ground and possibly come up with new concepts to cate-

gorise the developments analysed should they not fit into the aforemen-

tioned categories. In conclusion this can contribute to Anderson´s and

Valbjørn´s request to widening the debate on politics and thus democracy

in the region.

Reference List

Anderson, L. (2006) Searching Where the Light Shines: Studying Democ-

ratization in the Middle East. Annual Review of Political Science 9, pp. 189-

241.

Bayat, A. (2013) Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle

East. 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Biaocchi, G. and Connor, B. (2008) The Ethos in the Polis: Political Ethnog-

raphy as a Mode of Inquiry. Sociology Compass [online]. 2(1), pp.139-155.

[Accessed 19 January 2015].

Haage, G. (2006) Hating Israel in the Field. Anthropological Theory 9(1), pp. 59-79.

Sarah A. Lange

12

Nilan, P. (2002) Dangerous Fieldwork Re-examined: the question of re-

searcher subject position. Qualitative Research 2(3), pp.363-386.

Roy, O. (2002) Globalised Islam- The Search for a New Ummah. London:

Hurst & Company.

Tilly, C. (2006) Afterword: Political Ethnography as Art and Science. Quali-

tative Sociology 29, pp. 409-412.

Valbjørn, M. (2012) Upgrading Post-Democratization Studies: Examining a

Re-politicized Arab World in a Transition to Somewhere. Middle East Critique 21(1), pp.25-35.

Valbjørn, M. (2014) Reflections on self-reflections – On framing the analyt-

ical implications of the Arab Uprising [lecture to MA Middle East Studies, semester 3], University of Southern Denmark, 27 November.

Wedeen, L. (2010) Reflections on Ethnographic Work in Political Science.

Annual Review of Political Science 13, pp. 255-272.