"Autocratic yet vulnerable ..."

Whitaker in the Guardian:

"...There is a popular assumption – especially in the west – that because Arab regimes tend to be autocratic and authoritarian, the state in Arab countries is also strong.....
Regime survival is of course the top priority, so it's hardly surprising that the power of the state should be directed towards controlling dissent, and that this is the area where its might is deployed most forcefully and effectively. But exercising power in this way is often mistaken for a sign of strength when in reality it is an acknowledgment of vulnerability. As the late Nazih Ayubi noted in his book, Over-stating the Arab State: "The Arab state is therefore often violent because it is weak."
The Egyptian state, for example, may be perfectly capable of arresting demonstrators by the lorry-load, but it has also been trying for 10 years to persuade its citizens to wear seatbelts in their cars, with little success. For more than half a century, off and on, it has also been trying to stamp out female genital mutilation – again, without making much of a dent in traditional attitudes
In his groundbreaking book, Ayubi drew an important distinction between strong states and hard states. Unlike a strong state, a state that is hard may also be weak. A hard state tends to be highly centralised and interventionist, seeking (though not necessarily successfully) "to enforce a detailed, standardised regulation of the economy and the society"... .
This is not to suggest that western systems are perfect, but to show why, by comparison, Arab countries have such problems with compliance. In line with the generally patriarchal approach to government, Arab laws tend to be handed down from on high by diktat and the lack of critical scrutiny before they are approved often results in vague or ambiguous language that makes them more difficult to implement..."