Diffusion in the Arab World: Turkey and Iran as Models of Emulation on the Eve of the 'Arab Spring'.

• Author: Khatib, Ibrahim
• Position: ARTICLE

Starting in November 2010, the Arab world experienced a comprehensive and profound shock, which has been dubbed as the "Arab Spring." It took various forms, ranging from revolutions that unseated powerful regimes and rulers who thought their hold on power was secure, to vocal protests against the existing order and calls to replace it with something new.

One of the main sources of the public protests and the desire to alter the status quo was the Arab peoples' comparison of their condition with their surroundings--both in the world at large and in the non-Arab Muslim Middle East--meaning Turkey and Iran, both of which are regional powers. (1) Systematic comparisons, conducted in broadcast and print media, at academic and public conferences and gatherings, and even in official reports issued inside and outside the Arab world, juxtaposed the meager achievements of the Arab countries with the more substantial accomplishments of humanity at large, the developed countries, and neighboring countries such as Turkey and Iran.

This contrast between the puny achievements of the Arab states and society, on the one hand, and the impressive gains of Turkey and Iran, on the other, was evident in various fields, ranging from culture, science, and society to technology, industry, the military and defense establishment, and on to governmental stability, democracy, and civic life. Of all the countries in the world, Turkey and Iran were singled out for special attention in these comparisons. Both are Muslim countries that have experienced conquest, colonialism, and Western attempts to subdue them; as a result, a broad spectrum of those promoting change in the Arab world viewed these countries as objects for study and emulation. In fact, the desire to register the same achievements (real or imagined) as Iran and Turkey was a major ingredient of the unrest in much of the Arab world during the Arab Spring, and this desire contributed significantly to the waves of protest against the existing order during the first stage of the Arab Spring from 2010-2012.

This article will shed light on the discourse in the Arab world about taking Turkey and Iran as models for emulation, and on these models' contribution to the demands for change raised by diverse public figures, journalists, and scholars and deemed to be realistic and appropriate for the Arab world.

Theoretical Background: Diffusion as an Agent of Change

Societies' attempts to adopt patterns, behaviors, or models that have been tried successfully elsewhere and are taken as models to be replicated in new settings or environments that differ from that in which the ideas were developed or tested are referred to in the literature as 'diffusion.' Initially, the study of diffusion focused on the economic realm in general and on technological achievements in particular. The research looked at patterns of the adoption of successful economic models and tried to understand the methods and approaches by which some successes are adopted and tailored to new societies, with the changes required by the specific context. (2)

Later, social scientists also tried to understand the patterns of transmission of social and political ideas and models to societies that are unlike those in which they were developed and were first applied. (3) The literature examines such transfers and adoption of ideas and models from various points of view. Some are based on attempts by stronger countries, in both the global and regional contexts, to offer disadvantaged states and societies models they can adopt. There are two types of models for these attempts. The first involves a 'successful' state that employs its political, military, and cultural might to get other societies to adopt its practices. (4) One example is the Soviet Union's campaign after the Second World War to force Eastern European and neighboring Asian countries to adopt Communist regimes. Another example is the attempt by the United States to plant liberal democracy throughout the world, which culminated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was conducted in order to install a democratic government in that country, or efforts to impose processes of democratization as a means to set up liberal democracies in the Arab monarchies after the wave of terrorism that struck the United States at the start of the twenty-first century.

In tandem with these studies of diffusion, scholars proposed 'soft power' as a way to further the spread of successful models from one country to another. For example, Joseph Nye (5) suggested that the West in general and more specifically the United States should 'market' their successful models by emphasizing their global dominance and success as being a result of the economic, social, and educational models they have implemented. (6) In many ways, the Soviet Union after the Second World War, positioned itself as an alternative model to capitalism that third-world countries could adopt. Iran, too, proffered its Islamic Revolution as an idea and model to be copied elsewhere in the Muslim world, in light of what is presented as the successes of the Islamic Revolution that began in 1979.

Scholars of diffusion noted the dissemination of ideas or models from successful cases to other places. According to Jan Teorell, (7) "diffusion may occur through imposition or emulation." In the first case, countries that move towards democracy themselves try to promote democratization among their neighbors. In the case of emulation, by contrast, the driving force of diffusion comes from within the neighboring countries themselves. Countries follow the successful example of the neighbor that first installs democracy, by discovering "that it can be done" and learning "how it can be done."

Kurt Weyland (8) asserts that analysis of the factors behind diffusion reveals diverse components, which can be sorted into two categories. First, innovations can be transmitted by autonomous entities; alternatively, stronger entities can propose innovation and force them on weaker entities. He suggested four ways in which diffusion works. First, it may involve outside pressure by a stronger or dominant entity on a weaker state. This pressure can take the form of actual or threatened military intervention, economic pressure, or activating supporters inside the target country. Second--and this is the more standard way of promoting ideas--groups in the target country point to achievements by more successful countries and societies and thereby exert 'soft' and moral pressure for the adoption of ideas that have proven successful in other contexts. In other words, successful countries that have tried out various models use their soft power to market their models and ideas. Third, the weaker state/society can study models that might be appropriate for it. This study is carried out mainly by the leadership and elites who then propose that their own societies adopt these successful models, and the fourth mode of diffusion is a psychological response to failure or want. Societies that believe they have failed are apt to take over the experience of other countries or societies without studying them deeply. In such a case, the proposal to adopt another society's model is selective and insufficiently grounded.

In many cases, the literature on diffusion confuses diffusion with other methods of borrowing norms or models. Vertical patterns for the transfer of ideas and models from more successful countries and societies to less successful ones by means of 'hard' (i.e., economic or military) or 'soft' power are not really diffusion. Diffusion entails a reasonable level of desire on the part of the adopting/receiving society/state; in other words, the diffusion of ideas, models, and development plans requires a certain amount of 'free will' on the part of the receiving country or society.

We argue that there are four prerequisites for diffusion to occur. First, there must be an asymmetry between the two societies or countries--the source of the ideas or models and the receiver/adopter. Second, the models or ideas must have a broad impact on the country or society where they are implemented. Third, the receiving country or society must go through a process of learning, comprehensive or selective, and then seek to adopt the models or ideas it views as successful and suitable to its own circumstances. In other words, the receiving country/society must have a strong desire to take this step. Fourth, large sectors of the population of the receiving country, both among the elites and the public at large, must support the adoption of these ideas; that is, this support is not restricted to the ruler or authorities. In other words, there is a widespread sense of something missing and a desire to adopt others' models, along with public and political legitimacy to borrow these ideas.

Turkey and Iran: Models for the Arab World

The ideas and models proposed for adoption by much of the Arab world have diverse sources that go back a long time. Ever since the attempt by Muhammad Ali in Egypt (ruled 1805-1848) to adopt development plans from Europe, particularly France, there has been a continuing process of borrowing ideas that were spawned outside the Arab world (or at least proposals to do so). These include the concept of nationalism (both ethnic and territorial), modern forms of political organization, and even the nature of the regimes that ruled the Arab world after independence. These and other ideas are European notions that found key promoters in the Arab world. The idea of learning from the experience of the West, while trying to adopt some of the models and plans implemented there, plays a key role in the life of Arab societies as well as in everyday discussions and arguments in the Arab world.

During the two decades prior to the eruption of the Arab Spring, and in light of the rise of Turkey and Iran as regional powers, some in the Arab world had come to see these...