Why have the Middle East and North Africa remained so singularly resistant to democratization?

the coercive state hypothesis by Bellin and the oil-hinders-democracy argument by Ross. Which one do you think is a better explanation and why? (Please answer in one paragraph and respond to the paragraph below

I thought that the arguments by Bellin and Ross were good and that they made really good points. In Bellin’s argument he talks about the many regional failures that have made them stay away from a democracy. The first being that civil society is weak, for example labor unions are empty shells and nongovernmental organizations lack indigenous grounding. The second reason being that the commanding heights of the economy remain largely in state hands and the third reason being that people are poor, a lot of people can’t read and write, and inequality is significant. Ross’s argument talks about oil exports being strongly associated with authoritarian rule and he goes on to talk about three explanations for this pattern including the rentier effect, the repression effect, and the modernization effect. I feel like Bellin’s explanation is better because he emphasizes the fact that there are no universal factors or conditions for democracy due to the fact that some conditions for democracy in some countries may negatively effect other countries if put in place there. He also goes more on to talk about the most significant conditions for a democracy to flourish in a country, including the economy, state’s institutions, culture, and legitimacy of leadership.