There certainly is something to be said for having a strong leader who can prevent sectarian violence from erupting. Obviously, Assad could not. His father could. Sadam Hussein kept the country intact. Mubarack kept Egypt peaceful during his tenure.
Look at the former Yugoslavia. After Tito died the country fell apart and devolved into a nasty sectarian civil war. "Yugoslavia" does not even exist anymore.
The Middle East's history suggests that they may not be good candidates for a pluralistic political system. What happens, if we accept Egypt's experience as a guide, is that a democratic system allows for the dangerous, anti-democratic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to gain political power and disrupt the whole experiment. There is not sufficient hegemony for democracy to work there, as the various groups identify with their tribes and religious sects first, subordinating their allegiance to the state.
Arguably, from a western standpoint, we are better off having the various ME states controlled and operated by strongmen than democratic systems.