The target audiences of the paper which is democratization and authoritarianism in the arab world pdf in broadsheet are businessmen, executives and diplomats. It was the first English-language daily newspaper published in Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad Ali Hafiz, who was the co-founder of the newspaper, took on the role of Editor-in-Chief between 1 October 1977 until 1 October 1979. Khaled al-Maeena became Editor in Chief on 1 May 1982 and remained at the helm until 20 February 1993. Farouq Luqman followed between 25 February 1993 till 1 June 1993. Then it was Abdulqader Tash’s time to lead the newspaper which he did until 28 February 199. Khaled al-Maeena returned to Arab News for another term serving as Editor in Chief between 1 March 1998 and 8 October 2011. On 27 September 2016, Faisal J. Abbas was appointed as Editor-in-Chief following an announcement by SRMG’s new chairman, Prince Badr bin Farhan al-Saud.
Siraj Wahab, the paper’s longtime deputy managing editor and Rasheed Abousamah, who now serves as the paper’s Latin America correspondent. First, we must stop denying that any of the hijackers were Saudis or even Arab. We must also stop saying that the September 11 attacks were a CIA-Zionist plot to make the Arabs and Islam look bad. Arab countries had all failed miserably to offer either democracy or economic well-being. Announcing the deal, Arab News Editor in Chief Faisal J. Although the paper is owned by SRMG that is close to the Saudi government, there are some incidents in which journalists of the paper are dismissed by the government. Saudi Research and Marketing Group.
Saudi Research and Publishing Company. Saudi Arabia: Steps toward Democratization or Reconfiguration of Authoritarianism? This page was last edited on 9 January 2018, at 14:41. In earlier times, the term “autocrat” was coined as a favorable feature of the ruler, having some connection to the concept of “lack of conflicts of interests” as well as an indication of grandeur and power. Autocrat of all the Russias”, as late as the early 20th century. Totalitarianism is a system where the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society.
In an analysis of militarized disputes between two states, if one of the states involved was an autocracy the chance of violence occurring doubled. Examples from early modern Europe suggests early statehood was favorable for democracy. But, according to Jacob Hariri, outside Europe, history shows that early statehood has led to autocracy. This may be because of the country’s capacity to fight colonization or the presence of state infrastructure that Europeans did not need to build new institutions to rule. In all the cases, representative institutions were unable to get introduced in these countries and they sustained their autocratic rule.
European colonization was varied and conditional on many factors. Countries which were rich in natural resources had an extractive and indirect rule, whereas other colonies saw European settlement. Because of this settlement, these countries possibly experienced setting up of new institutions. Colonization also depended on factor endowments and settler mortality. Anarchy for Olson is characterized by a number of “roving bandits” who travel around many different geographic areas extorting wealth from local populations leaving little incentive for populations to invest, and produce. As local populations lose the incentive to produce, there is little wealth for either the bandits to steal or the people to use.
Olson theorizes autocrats as “stationary bandits” who solve this dilemma by establishing control over a small fiefdom and monopolize the extortion of wealth in the fiefdom in the form of taxes. Once an autocracy is developed, Olson theorizes that both the autocrat and the local population will be better off as the autocrat will have an “encompassing interest” in the maintenance and growth of wealth in the fiefdom. Because violence threatens the creation of rents, the “stationary bandit” has incentives to monopolize violence and to create a peaceful order. They describe the process of autocratic state formation as a bargaining process among individuals with access to violence. For them, these individuals form a dominant coalition that grants each other privileges such as the access to resources. As violence reduces the rents, members of the dominant coalition have incentives to cooperate and to avoid fighting. A limited access to privileges is necessary to avoid competition among the members of the dominant coalition, who then will credibly commit to cooperate and will form the state.
In order to remain in power, this elite hinders people outside the dominant coalition to access organizations and resources. Autocracy, then, is maintained as long as the personal relationships of the elite continue to forge the dominant coalition. These scholars further suggest that once the dominant coalition starts to become broader and allow for impersonal relationships, limited access orders can give place to open access orders. Those holding the political power in the present will design the political and economic institutions in the future according to their interests. In autocracies, both de jure and de facto political powers are concentrated in one person or a small elite that will promote institutions for keeping the de jure political power as concentrated as the de facto political power, thereby maintaining autocratic regimes with extractive institutions. It has been argued that authoritarian regimes, such as China and Russia, have attempted to export their system of government to other countries through “autocracy promotion”. A number of scholars are skeptical that China and Russia have successfully exported authoritarianism abroad.
The third century saw invasions from the barbarians as well as economic decline. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 after civic unrest, further economic decline, and invasions led to the surrender of Romulus Augustus to Odoacer, a German king. The priesthood supported a pantheon that demanded human sacrifice, and the nobility consisted mainly of warriors who had captured many prisoners for these sacrificial rites. The Aztec Emperor hence functioned both as the sole ruler of the empire and its military forces, and as the religious figurehead behind the empire’s aggressive foreign policy. Shortly after being crowned as ruler, Tsar Ivan immediately removed his political enemies by execution or exile and established dominance over an Empire, expanding the borders of his kingdom dramatically.