Search

Abstract: We analyse the nature of robust determinants of differences in democracy levels across countries taking explicitly into account uncertainty in the choice of covariates and spatial spillovers. We make use of recent developments in Bayesian model averaging to assess the effect of a large number of potential factors affecting democratisation processes and account for several specifications of spatial linkages. Our results indicate that spatial spillovers are present in the data even after controlling for a large number of geographical covariates. Addressing the determinants of democracy without modelling such spillovers may lead to flawed inference about the nature of the determinants of democratisation processes. In particular, our results emphasise the role played by Muslim religion, population size, trade volumes, English language, natural resource rents, GDP per capita, being a MENA country and the incidence of armed conflicts as factors affecting democracy robustly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the phenomenon of minoritarian regimes in the Middle East, focusing on Bahrain, Syria and Israel/Palestine. It considers, in each, how minority rule was established, the mechanisms through which it is maintained, and the means through which it is legitimated. Although these regimes are not typically analyzed as a category, they have important features in common. In all three, the state's political and security institutions are controlled by members of an ethnic/religious group that is a numerical minority in the country, at the expense of a majority group with a competing claim to indigeneity. While the legal and political mechanisms that these regimes use to restrict access to power vary, they employ similar strategies for legitimating minority rule, presenting democracy as a threat not only to the regime's survival, but also to the security of the group whose interests it claims to represent. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Under what conditions do minorities in the Middle East participate in authoritarian coalitions? Research on authoritarian resilience in the Middle East has been largely silent on linguistic and religious minorities’ preferences over regime types. Here, we examine whether minorities differ in their support for authoritarianism from the majority groups in four Middle Eastern states. We argue that minorities whose status is threatened by a transition to majoritarian decision-making institutions are less likely to be supportive of democratization. We examine how different cleavages affect the preferences of minorities over regime type and identify three historical legacies in the Middle East that have shaped these cleavages: the Ottoman-Islamic legacy of minority accommodation, the ethnic class structure that emerged as a result of the region’s integration to world markets in the nineteenth century, and a post-independence pattern of authoritarian secularism. Based on survey research and a comparison of minorities in Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, and Jordan, we find that linguistic minorities tend to be less supportive of authoritarianism while religious minorities tend to be more supportive of authoritarianism. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

First of all, this paper frames the research into political change - one of the main study areas in comparative politics - and focusses on the regions of North Africa and the Middle East, which the ranks of comparativists had barely analysed until the so-called Arab Spring. There is, consequently, a dearth of theoretical frameworks with which to approach the experiences of political change that began in 2011 with the Arab protests and revolutions. Secondly, it analyses the democratising scope of the processes of rupture and reform brought about in the political systems of the region, observing that the expectations raised by the Arab Spring have not been fulfilled, except in the case of Tunisia. Lastly, it presents and systematises the eight articles assembled in this monograph, of which the actors and dynamics of change in the region are the cornerstone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper advances the proposition that post-Arab Spring politics are a product of globalisation’s economic and social liberalisation. The global market and privatisation have fundamentally deconstructed centralised autocratic rule over state and society, while facilitating corruption and selective development, culminating in public outrage. The political order of the Middle East and North Africa since the Arab Spring synthesises globalisation’s dialectic duality, in which economic integration has contributed to the demise of national authoritarianism, inciting communalism and political fragmentation. This paper analyses emerging political trends and challenges based on a comparative analysis of Egypt and Tunisia. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of International Relations / Uluslararasi Iliskiler is the property of International Relations Council and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Faculty of Political Science is the property of Journal of Faculty of Political Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Social civil movements that were devoted to change the power started at the Middle East region in Tunisia and then exercised control over many Arab countries, which has led to the beginning of a new period in the region. In this article we will discuss the new period in question and make a study of some subjects from the management changes in the countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya that have experienced "Arab Spring" in recent history to the events leading to civil war in some countries such as Syria. Within this framework, we will explain why the period has been called under such a name and tell the events encountered in general terms under the title of "What is the Arab Spring?" Then we will evaluate the reasons of the Arab Spring in the political, social and economic categories and analyze these factors. Following this, we will discuss the political and governmental structures of the countries, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria before the Arab Spring within the scope of oppressive leadership structures of these countries. Finally, we will evaluate the governmental structures of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria after the events and these ongoing periods comparatively with their pasts and try to answer the question of "Did the Arab Spring manage to democratize the oppressive regimes?" [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers perspectives on the prospects for democratisation in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region in the light of political developments since 2010, with particular reference to international democracy support. An introduction shares certain assumptions about democracy support’s general record before threats and opportunities to democracy support arising from developments in the region are discussed. Next democracy support’s response to those developments is examined, while the fourth section highlights some challenges for democracy support in the region and beyond. Throughout, discussion is contextualised within the larger literature on democratisation. Final remarks lead to the conclusion that developments in the region both present challenges that should be viewed as opportunities, and offer opportunities that will be challenging to address, not just for democracy support in the region and further afield but in terms of the guidance that democratisation studies have to offer. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article presents an examination into the characteristics and consequences of the ongoing Arab Spring uprisings of the Middle East from their beginnings in late 2010. The ideological goals of the uprisings are identified, noting their attention toward fostering democracy and civil rights in postcolonial Arab politics. The successes and failures of the Arab Spring are evaluated. Broader regional consequences of the events are also examined.

This paper employs a newly developed coding of the degree to which Muslim-majority states incorporate a strict version of Shari’a family law into their legal code. This measures the feature of Islamic tradition, which is hypothesised to impede women's sociopolitical equality. I find that the incorporation of a strict version of Shari’a family law is an impediment to sociopolitical gender equality; however, the inclusion of other laws and policies based on Islamic tenets is not. Furthermore, the negative effect of an oil-dependent economy does not hold in the subset of Muslim-majority states once Shari’a family law inclusion is accounted for. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article offers the author's insights concerning the special issue of the periodical "Middle Eastern Critique" which examine the future politics in Middle East and the era of post-democratization. The author says that he and his co-guest editor André Bank have explained that the special issues' overall purpose is to provide a nuanced and more self-critical understanding of post-democratization, as well as in Middle Eastern politics' future research methods. He states that an article by Andrea Teti focuses on post-democratization by situating himself in the concept. Moreover, he also relates the issues on Arab authoritarianism's resilience and Arab uprisings.

Recent work argues that the relationship between Islamic faith, the lack of support for gender equality and democratization is spurious. This paper analyzes the correlates of individual support for increasing the number of women serving in Indonesian legislatures. Indonesia is a relevant case because it is an emerging democracy, outside of the oil-rich Middle East, where over 85% of the citizenry registers a Muslim faith. We find that the willingness of Indonesians to support or oppose gender equity in politics is only minimally rooted in their faith or culture. This result buttresses the conclusions of cross-national studies that question the appropriateness of treating predominantly Muslim nations in the same way when studying questions of gender equity and democratization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is 'Islam' inherently un- or anti-democratic? Is the fact that Islam is the majority religion in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) sufficient explanation as to why the region exhibits a decided lack of democracy? How, if at all, does globalisation affect democratisation in the MENA? To examine these issues, the article is divided into the following sections. After a brief introductory section, the second section turns to an examination of how Islam and globalisation interact in the MENA. The third section examines how globalisation offers both challenges and opportunities for Islam. The fourth section is concerned with western perceptions of Islam before and after 11 September 2001. The fifth section looks at Islam and democratisation in the MENA and traces the impact of globalisation. The overall conclusion is that globalisation - with its material and non-material characteristics - does not have a great impact on democratisation outcomes in the MENA. This is mainly because the external factors collected under the rubric of globalisation are ultimately less influential in MENA countries which have highly influential sets of domestic factors that reflect long periods of internal social, cultural and political development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US strategy of external democratization has failed. Iraq is threatened by state failure; militarization and confrontation shape US-Arab relations. These and other global “Iraq Effects” should not cover the equally important but less recognized developments on the regional and local level of Middle Eastern politics. Thus, Iraq effects have primarily affected political processes beyond the “classical” nation-state level. The Iraq war has decisively contributed to the development of a new regional order of escalating intra- and inter-state violence, the rise of Iran as a regional power as well as a general polarization. Secondly, the Iraq war has affected the emergence and consolidation of new forms of cross-border, trans-local mobility of radical Islamist groups, Kurdish activists, but also of business people. Thirdly, the war has caused a massive refugee crisis in the Middle East which transforms local structures in Iraq's neighboring states of Jordan and Syria. These complex dynamics constitute the “radiance” of the Iraq war for Middle Eastern politics after 2003. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost a decade before the end of the 20th century, most parts of Eastern Europe were still under the communist rule and, with a few exceptions, the Middle East was checker squared with varying degrees of authoritarianism. Almost a decade into the 21st century and many East European countries are now regarded as democracies. The Middle East, however, continues to be dominated by authoritarian regimes. This study outlines some of the factors that can help to explain this contrasting outcome in a comparative framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides author's view on the analytic challenges of studying the Middle East and its evolving media environment. It states that the changing objects of the study is one of the challenges that Media and Cultural Studies face. Furthermore, the author discusses the political, communication, and cultural studies of the region as the three dominant approaches in Media Studies. Moreover, she argues that the there are three ways of framing different sets of issues such as the nation, region, and transnationality. The author suggests that the awareness of the real historical and contingent differences and political economies that exist is the best way to describe the processes of political change and democratization in the Middle East.

Jillian Schwedler examines three questions about the political inclusion of Islamist groups in the Middle East. Using empirical evidence from studies of elections in the region, she discusses whether inclusion or exclusion is a better strategy for deflating radical challenges. She concludes that inclusion is far more likely to produce an overall moderate political sphere, though it is unlikely to eliminate all forms of radicalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Promoting democracy in the Middle East has been a key foreign policy objective of the Bush administration since n September 2001. Democratizing the Arab world, in particular, is seen as an important instrument in the ‘war on terror’. To help democratize the Arab Middle East, the US initiated a number of policies which, it claims, have encouraged reform. But what has really been the impact of US initiatives? This article examines the implementation of US democracy promotion policies across the Arab region, and in particular Arab countries, and argues that it has had mixed results. The article suggests three reasons why this is so. First, democracy is part of a wider set of US interests and concerns with which it is frequently in contradiction. Second, the Bush administration conceives democracy as a panacea: it overlooks the problems its implementation may cause and lacks clear ideas about achieving this implementation. Third, democracy promotion policies have limited outcomes because neither a politically neutral nor a more interventionist approach can initiate a reform process if it is not already underway for domestic reasons. On the basis of the three critiques, the article concludes with recommendations for US policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the strategic implications of political liberalization and democratization in the Middle East. The terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, forced Washington to reevaluate its posture toward the region. The attacks highlighted the deep-seated anger, frustration, and resentment harbored by millions of Muslims and the extreme lengths to which a minority of radicals would to go to further their cause. Washington attributes the spread of Islamic radicalism to the persistence of authoritarianism in the Middle East. It acknowledges that the status quo in the region is illegitimate, unacceptable, and unsustainable, given the failure of incumbent autocratic regimes to address social and economic problems and meet the basic demands of their citizens. As a consequence, the issues of reform and democracy were elevated to a level of critical importance.

Discusses the success of the foreign policy of the U.S. toward the Middle East, particularly its war in Iraq to help establish Middle Eastern democracy. Challenges facing democratization in the Middle East; Outcome of the 2005 elections in Iraq; Role of the U.S. in the democratization of the region.

ABSTRACT Elections have become a common feature of the political landscape of the Middle East and North Africa, where dozens of elections for office have taken place in recent years. But more, and frequent, elections, or even some political liberalization, is not synonymous with democratization. Where elections have become a feature of the political system, we still find some disturbing evidence of de-liberalization as well Looking at the record in more detail, this article attempts to highlight the continuing tensions between the pressures for democratization and the strategy of gradual opening up of political systems in the Middle East. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the main contributions which have been made to the understanding of democratization in the Middle East. Factors that complicate the task of providing overview of the democratization studies in the Middle East; Assessment of the democratization strategy in the region pursued by the European Union.

Focuses on the topics connected with democratization and the building of the institutions of civil society in the Middle East. Details on the longstanding pressures for democratization in the region; Accounts on the problem of free elections; Emphasis on the complex nature of developing pluralistic politics in the region.