Author: mehmetermanerol

Authoritarianism and Labour Repression in the Middle East and North Africa: Reflections on the 2025 ITUC Global Rights Index

mehmetermanerolLeave a comment

The International Trade Union Confederation鈥檚 (ITUC) was released on 2 June. The report presents a sobering picture of escalating violations of workers鈥� rights globally. Based on data from 151 countries, the Index reports that 87% of countries violated the right to strike, 80% restricted collective bargaining, and over 70% impeded union registration or denied access to justice. These trends, the report argues, reflect a 鈥渃oup against democracy鈥濃�攁n ongoing assault on core labour rights driven by repressive governments, emboldened corporations, and a broader authoritarian and conflict-ridden global capitalism.

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region once again emerges as the most repressive in the Index (with an overall score of 4.68; a score of 5 indicates no guarantee of rights), with all countries in the region found to have violated fundamental rights to organise and collectively bargain, as well as registration of unions. The right to strike was suppressed in 95% of countries in the region, while over half of MENA states arbitrarily arrested or detained workers (p.28). The list of the ten worst countries for working people is composed mainly of Global South countries, with MENA cases including Egypt, Tunisia, and T眉rkiye. Over the past few years, my research has focused on the political economy and labour relations of these three countries[i], and below I briefly discuss them with insights drawn from the ITUC report.

However, before turning to these cases, it is important to highlight some potential limitations or problems in the ITUC report. While its findings are grounded in substantial and credible documentation, the non-contextualised regional framing of the Global Rights Index risks reproducing a familiar issue regarding the Middle East: the tendency to isolate MENA as uniquely authoritarian or culturally predisposed to repression. By highlighting MENA as the 鈥渨orst region鈥� without sufficiently situating its labour regimes within broader historical and structural dynamics, the Index could be seen to implicitly (albeit unintentionally) reinforce exceptionalist interpretations that have long shaped conventional understandings of the region.

When considering the Global South in general, and the MENA region in particular, we must not overlook the dynamics inherent to uneven capitalist development, such as persistent global and regional inequalities, the imperatives of cheap labour in hierarchical global production networks, IFI conditionalities, and the long-term consequences of war, occupation, and imperialist intervention. In countries like Egypt and Tunisia, and historically in Turkey, for example, the role of the IMF and World Bank in shaping labour markets through austerity, privatisation, and deregulation has been central to the weakening of collective rights. The region is also the most unequal in the world by income and wealth, according to the 鈥攁 fact that reinforces the political utility of repressing labour as a force of potential redistribution and mobilisation.

While specific political regimes certainly shape labour practices, and domestic political agency is not insignificant, these conditions should not be viewed as 鈥榓nomalies鈥� within an otherwise democratic capitalism. That countries like the United States and the United Kingdom (major centres of 鈥榣iberal democratic capitalism鈥�) are both rated as systematically violating workers鈥� rights (with a score of 4, p.21) should caution against any simplistic division between 鈥渁uthoritarian鈥� and 鈥渄emocratic鈥� regimes under capitalism. Rather, what we are witnessing is a global pattern of labour repression under crisis-ridden global capitalism.

Read More »

Debating 鈥楽tate Capitalism鈥� in Turkey: Beyond False Dichotomies

mehmetermanerol3 Comments

Following the 2016 failed coup attempt, and in the context of increasing mistrust towards the West, Turkey鈥檚 president Erdogan reflected his discontent with the EU and argued that , namely the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) led primarily by China and Russia. Soon after, despite being a NATO member, to buy the S-400 air defence missile system. Taken together with Turkey鈥檚 other 鈥榓dventures鈥� in its region, these developments were perceived as manifestations of a changing political economy of Turkey, and were deeply disturbing to Western powers. After all, since the end of the Second World War, Turkey had been a close ally of the US-led Western capitalist bloc, it continued to be one during the Cold War; and had remained very close to US and EU interests following the end of the Cold War in 1991.

For some accounts[i], these developments are related to the changing world order and global power shifts following the 2008 crisis, as the decline of the 鈥榣iberal international order鈥� and the rise of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) marked transformations of the global political economy. Hence, there is a tendency to explain Turkey鈥檚 late political economy in this context. It is argued that, in this 鈥榩ost-liberal international order鈥� where two competing political economies come to the fore, Turkey is moving towards the 鈥楨ast鈥� or 鈥榥on-West鈥� – mainly China and Russia. As such, Turkey鈥檚 engagement with non-Western 鈥榞reat powers鈥� (which are generally characterised by 鈥榓uthoritarian state capitalism鈥� as opposed to the 鈥榥eoliberal political economy鈥�/liberal democracy/鈥檇emocratic capitalism鈥� of the West), shapes Turkey鈥檚 political economy and paves the way for 鈥榓uthoritarianism鈥�, 鈥榠lliberal democracy鈥� and 鈥榮tate capitalism鈥�. Put differently, as the legitimacy crisis of 鈥榃estern neoliberalism鈥� makes it less desirable for countries like Turkey, Turkey is regarded to have deviated from neoliberalism and liberal democracy and moved to state capitalism and authoritarianism.

Read More »

Assessing the 鈥楻eturn鈥� of the State: Bringing Class Back In

mehmetermanerol1 Comment

49626859048_f8b85f881c_o

鈥�There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen鈥�, words famously attributed to Lenin. In the last few weeks the Covid-19 pandemic has led to an extraordinary series of events throughout the world. Our everyday lives, the way our economies are organised, and the ways that we exercise our basic rights and freedoms are being transformed. These changes were unimaginable only a few weeks ago.

A significant aspect of these 鈥榚xtraordinary times鈥� is governments鈥� extraordinary responses to the economic meltdown triggered by the coronavirus crisis. Within the space of just a few weeks, one taboo after another in Western capitalism has been broken, . As monetary policy measures (i.e. unlimited QE, record low interest rates) , unprecedented fiscal stimulus packages including wage and income guarantees came to the fore. In the EU, the so-called ordoliberal principles of competition, free market and a commitment to a balanced budget (that were harshly imposed upon Greek and other peripheral European economies during the Eurozone crisis) appear to have been all but forgotten by the core capitalist countries. 鈥榃e will protect our strategic companies from foreign takeovers鈥� . The infamous 鈥�schwarze Null鈥� budget policy of Germany, for example, was abandoned as the . In the UK, the traditionally austerity-loving Conservative 笔补谤迟测鈥檚 Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an . The Trump administration , amounting to $2 trillion, which includes 鈥榟elicopter money鈥� for the citizens. 鈥�鈥� became the motto of G20 leaders and finance ministers. All of a sudden, austerity ended as the reproduction of the capitalist system became impossible without the protective measures that were introduced. This reflects the fact that austerity was a political choice all along; despite being framed as 鈥�TINA鈥� for years. Read More »