Stable political system in the middle east

 International relations:

India - Middle Eastern countries
Red Why has it been so difficult to establish any stable political system in most of the middle eastern countries?
Why is it that external forces are more influential than the domestic conditions in the working of the government?
Why is it that most of these countries have become a breeding ground for terrorism?

If you go through, " how a nation is getting evolved?"
What is the prime factor which you need to form a stable nation? 

Unity among people, land of its own, government and soverignity of its own

the roots of political instability is primarily economic discontent of the people in teh middle-eastern countries. add to it the lack of sovereignity as many a erstwhile rulers were puppets of western regimes. Oil and power dynamics.

if you want to form a stablpe nation, then there should be political stability. 
Even external security and internal security depends on political stability only.

Now tell me what's common about most of the middle east nations wrt politics??

it's a scramble for resources in a region which is backward educationally and politically but rich economically. Religious conflicts sunni-shia. Corruption (Economic) and Secterian (Social) issues.

Religious conflicts upbringing pollitical unstablility. The middle east countries are not able to develop because of the poor relationships across countries and their efforts to promote the economic integration and co-operation among various states in that region. They face problems like Israeli-palestinian conflict which create hindrance to peace and development, Instability created by war in Afghanistan, these neighbouring countries seeking the help of other nations to hit / trouble their neighbours ex: US invasion of Iraq .. these factors stop their economic development and bringing an Union for this region.. Hegemonic and dynastic rulers

Doctrine of Pan Islamic nation. Now tell me what's the final destiny for any country politically? I mean what can be the progress if nations are autocratic?

Any country in this world I you read the history, it must have been autocratic and it evolves finally settle down at democracy. and democracy is the final solution.
Since most of these countries are autocratic, all are in a transition stage to democracy.. 
Since it happens this political instability will be there. In turn it will creat social issues, terrorism etc etc..

autocracy defers to country to country ... We are seeing some downside in Middle East however country like China, Thailand have proven autocracy is best option

China included for not being democratic

Saudi Arabia has made initiatives in reforming their judicial systems, improving their international relations, converting their strength into wealth, adapting market laws to meet the international standards, working out efficient institutions to take care of the public needs at par with other internationally developed countries.. Adapting new technologies, new trends.

There its suppressed to maximum extent. We can say its not a sustainable setup! 
Juz bcoz china has it, u cant deny what's actualy happening in middle east!

Its that the priority keeps changing between these systems.. If you are to run behind building the security to take care of your people then you will not have time to work for their development. Once there is no development, then there is no progress and stability, . stable government - good initiatives - development and this goes on ..

 Anywhere its , the answer is the same.
Autocracy cant remain the same. It will evolve and convertede to a democracy.
Its a time tested solution. Verdict given by history . Not you, me or anyone!

we can't say china is doing good just because it is economically good, they suppress dissent, treat their people as economic agents, while we treat our people as the ultimate sovereign. so i think demoacracy and autocracy cannot be compared only on economic terms.

once they move towards democracy, then there is atleast something good meant for every individual involved in the system .. there is someone to think of everybody and that will bring in overall development and further the growth of the country as a whole..

You take any country which is democracy today. It must have been under autocratic rule before. The difference it happened earlier for us. For midle east its happening very late that's it.

its a matter of percentage.. Democratic system attempts to address the needs of all individuals/ citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion, social setup etc.... whereas autocracy by virtue of it, remains biased towards the upper and the lower..

once they move towards democracy, then there is atleast something good meant for every individual involved in the system .. there is someone to think of everybody and that will bring in overall development and further the growth of the country as a whole..

You take any country which is democracy today. It must have been under autocratic rule before. The difference it happened earlier for us. For midle east its happening very late that's it.

its a matter of percentage.. Democratic system attempts to address the needs of all individuals/ citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion, social setup etc.... whereas autocracy by virtue of it, remains biased towards the upper and the lower..

there's a fundamental disagreement in the narrative whether Democracy (of westphalian style) suits every country on the planet or not?

we'd like to think so, as we've chosen it ourselves, but shouldn't there be further debate on it?

Overal development is an ideal situation. Though everybody knows its not pragmatic, as a democratic nation we aspire for that. That's it.

does westernisation is playing major role in external force to influence inside Middle East unrest ?

China gives reasons as to why its not suited for them, no middle-eastern scholar has come forward and posed a challenge to it.

But wat can be a better solution ? 
Its not you or me think.
Its a verdict passed by TIME.

agreed its a wide concept- but strictly in the present context and question we're discussing, can we afford to simply brush aside the stability and progress of Saudi arabia and UAE?

how do you fit in Bangladesh unrest here. And India during emergency?

 the solution is the choice of whether to quantify what democracy offers additionally.  i think the beauty of democracy is there is a public debate on what is suitable and what's not and chose things as a collective decision. Some regimes opt for "guided democracy" where they uniaterally decide what's suitable for them.

human rights and its contribution to GDP.

unless we evolve an index like Gross Domestic Happiness, the point is- at present there is simply no measure by which democtratic values like Human rights etc find its representation in saying whether Autocracy led GDP is better than Democracy led GDP.

In Saudi Arabia, protests happened. But it was suppressed. We can agree that they are economically developing but not politically sustainable!

You cant actually quantify! The benefits are way beyond your imaginations! Empathise you being in a autocratic country. 

apart from religion I am not able to think any reason for being ground for terrorism ?.

10:41:14 PM

Any other view points which you advise us to think ?

Yup exactly. In democracy always the pros outweighs cons. 
That's wat we are trying to achieve!

US encroachment on rigts of local people propelled them for terrorist activities.

When many people visit your place, there is a room for many impressions getting developed in the minds of the citizens. this gives rise to the partition/ division among the people.. their ideologies, system of living, development all gathers around this.. then this gives rise to the enemity among them once they are not agreeing to others and are not able to convince others.. this is how the problem starts.. then the other country take advantage of this situation.

Difference between have and have not. A certain sect in power. Other fights to grab it. Eg Iraq

Terrorism today is actually a well organised business in the name of religion . That's it. There is nobody who really fight for cause todawy. No ideology, nothing.
Its an international business!

Huge business with well laid norms. Fast buck comes from here and people get attracted to this profession too.. Even I can say the same for naxalism also. Its a well organised systematic business. No ideology no cause nothing! 
People are fooled in the name of ideology. 
But inside people are earning crores and crores. 
These are things beyond our imagination.

In fact, there are beautifully built, well knit institutions to train them, to put them into orbit and to take care of the welfare of them, their families - those things they can't imagine are in their hands to enjoy and live a beautiful life etc.. Once this is taken care, what else is required for any human being.

There are various techniques adopted to bring them into terrorism. The ultimate being the religion - which is significantly visible to the whole world.... nothing else.. we may find many reasons contributing to this,, but the maximum bonding comes from the religion umbrella..

Israel issue (I've covered this)

Second is Israel-Syria-US and India I'm not getting what to write in this second as if there is anything common in these 4 nations, so please guide what to write in this second

 Its basically thebequations between ( usa and Israel) vs ( Syria, Iran and Russia). it has to be covered usa and Israel) vs ( Syria, Iran and Russia) and stand of India right?