Topic: 2025 – Authoritarianism and Democracy
Country: Bahrain
Delegate Name: Violet Pintus
Over the past decades, the world has seen some countries go through the cycle of the rise of an authoritarian regime and the associated debates on what the democratic governance process entails. The multidimensional local pressures for modernization and social transformation, which each country confronts, extensively influence their governance models as a result of political, economic, and technological factors. The Kingdom of Bahrain, being a small yet strategically important Gulf state, presents an interesting case in understanding the interplay between the tendencies of authoritarianism and those of democracy. This research paper looks at Bahrain’s position on authoritarianism and democracy; it analyzes its governance structure, undertakes an analysis of the reform efforts, as well as the position taken up by technology in shaping citizen-state relations. Situating Bahrain within the broader context of the comparative political systems and drawing connections to empirical findings from other democracies and flawed democracies will highlight the complexities and contradictions inherent in Bahrain’s approach to governance. Democracy, traditionally defined as “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” refers to a range of institutions and processes that ensure free and fair elections, citizen participation, protection of rights, and adherence to the rule of law. Authoritarianism, by contrast, is marked by centralized power, curtailed civil liberties, and a lack of genuine political pluralism. The distinction between full democracies, flawed democracies, and authoritarian regimes is not merely academic; it shapes real-world governing outcomes and citizen experiences. Recent empirical research underlines the global trend of democratic backsliding, with many countries experiencing decline in democratic norms and the rise of electoral autocracies. Notably, even established democracies such as India have witnessed episodes of authoritarian governance, leading to enduring legacies that affect political representation and confidence in institutions. In Europe, studies distinguish between full and flawed democracies, revealing that citizens in flawed democracies often display higher trust in government entities and more positive attitudes toward technological innovations – such as artificial intelligence – compared to their counterparts in full democracies. These cross-national insights provide a vital comparative lens for understanding Bahrain’s political trajectory. Bahrain’s political system is officially a constitutional monarchy, whereby the King serves as head of state and holds a plethora of executive authority. While the constitution provides for a bicameral legislature, actual political power still vests in the royal family and the appointed officials. The lower house of the parliament is elected, but the upper house is fully appointed by the King, leaving a great deal of influence for the monarchy in terms of legislative outcomes. Political parties are banned; accordingly, political societies perform limited functions reminiscent of those of parties, but their activities are stringently regulated. Based on this governance model, Bahrain falls into the category of hybrid regime or flawed democracy. The absence of completely competitive elections, restrictions on political expression, and periodic crackdowns on dissent are hallmarks of authoritarian leanings within the formal trappings of constitutional rule. Despite a centralized political structure, Bahrain has implemented noteworthy reforms related to public administration and citizen services, particularly through its e-government agenda. Partially, these efforts to modernize citizen-state interactions are driven by the need for economic diversification and improvement of the efficiency of government. The digitization of services, such as managing citizen records and implementing interoperable frameworks, shows a technocratic approach to governance that puts its priorities into optimizing and sustaining processes. One of the salient challenges identified in Bahrain’s e-government project is the fragmentation of citizen records across multiple state organizations, with resulting inefficiencies and potential barriers to access. The proposed solution-an interoperable framework using blockchain technology-demonstrates the willingness of the regime to adopt innovative, unconventional methods for overcoming issues of trust, centralization, and technological incompatibility. In fact, while such reforms are framed largely in increasing citizen satisfaction and streamlining public services, they also represent the government’s desire to maintain centralized oversight and control, which is consistent with the logics of authoritarian governance. The relationship between digital transformation and democracy is complex. On one hand, e-government initiatives can increase transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment, thus supporting democratic values. On the other hand, the deployment of advanced technologies-for instance, blockchain for citizen records or artificial intelligence in public services-can be mobilized toward supporting and reinforcing central control over populations and circumscribing genuine participation. Empirical evidence in European democracies suggests that citizens of flawed democracies often express more trust in government and a more positive attitude toward technological reforms than their counterparts in full democracies. This paradox is due to the absence of deeply entrenched liberal-democratic norms and a greater reliance on governmental authority for innovation and service delivery. Bahrain may be no different. The state’s central role in driving modernization and delivering services can yield public support or at least acquiescence, even when avenues for political conflict remain restricted. Bahrain’s blockchain-enabled framework for citizen services, for example, is designed to enhance security, privacy, and reliability; given citizens controlled access to their records, the actual governance of such frameworks nonetheless remains in the hands of state authorities, and the underlying policy environment reflects the same centralization that characterizes Bahrain’s wider political system. The implication of technological modernization, therefore, does not necessarily extend into the broader democratization of political power.
