Latest Articles

​This paper addresses a theoretical model for the concept of "consociational democracy", beginning with the concept's roots in the Austrian Marxist tradition before describing its elaboration in 1969 by the Dutch-American political scientist Arend Lijphart. Lijphart's work was part of his wider critique of Gabriel Almond's categorization of Western political systems. This study presents a structural criticism of the term "consociational democracy" and its usage, arguing that the practice of "consociational democracy" was born of pragmatic policies before maturing into a theoretical model. It argues that the subsequent contributions of Lijphart were merely an extrapolation from a set of examples without "theory" to underpin it and that "power sharing" does not necessarily lead to democratization. The study thus draws up several theoretical observations that help distinguish "consociationalism" from "consociational democracy". Finally, the paper contrasts the suitability of this theoretical model for both Northern Ireland and Lebanon.

What motivates an authoritarian system, or more precisely, its leadership, which tailors legislation to its needs, violates it at will, usurps powers and combines them as it wishes, to support the existence of a seemingly "formal" independent judiciary? Moreover, how does it allow this judiciary to challenge it by limiting its authorities and narrowing its interests? The study revisits this perennial yet contemporary question, employing the Palestinian experience as a case study. It adopts a comprehensive analytical approach, examining the orientations of the Palestinian Constitutional Judiciary (PCJ), represented by the Supreme Constitutional Court and its predecessor, the Supreme Court as a temporary constitutional court, over two decades (2002 - 2022). The study originated from the assumption that the PCJ undertakes a "dual function" akin to experiences observed in authoritarian regimes, where there is a propensity for the existence of a judiciary that allows the sacrifice of some of its non-essential interests. This sacrifice is made in exchange for its utilization in legitimizing the regime and/or reassuring investors and/or controlling the administrative apparatus. However, the study concluded that the sole central and substantive interest is the support of the alleged legitimacy of the regime, and there is no corresponding sacrifice of non- essential interests. Instead, there is an abandonment of human rights.

This study examines Sudanese peace agreements during the period 1972 – 2020 by analyzing the roots of the conflicts between the political center and the peripheral regions, through the lens of the concept of the heritage of origin , which reflects the accumulation of historical grievances rooted in political, economic, and cultural marginalization. The study argues that, since the colonial era, the central governments concentrated power and development in the Nile Valley at the expense of other regions, which gave rise to demands for equitable participation that later evolved into armed rebellions. Despite the signing of several peace agreements—such as the Addis Ababa Agreement (1972), the Khartoum and Fashoda Agreements (1997), the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005), the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (2011), and the Juba Agreement for Peace in Sudan (2020)—most of them relied on partial power- and wealth-sharing arrangements without addressing the structural roots of the conflicts. Added to this were the absence of trust between the parties, foreign mediation, the repeated violation of commitments, and the instrumentalization of agreements to serve short-term political interests. The findings confirm that the failure to sustain peace was a direct consequence of leaving the heritage of origin unaddressed, leading to the secession of South Sudan in 2011 and the continuation of armed conflicts in Darfur, the East, and the Two Areas. The study recommends rebuilding the foundations of peace on equal citizenship, fair development, and the recognition of cultural diversity as necessary conditions for breaking the cycle of war and achieving national stability.

This paper examines the 2012 General National Congress (GNC) elections in Libya, analyzing their implications and the interpretations that framed them as a victory for the liberal bloc (the National Forces Alliance) over the Islamist faction (the Justice and Construction Party and its allies). The paper reveals that this interpretation lacks accuracy, highlighting that a significant number of winning independent candidates were affiliated with Islamist movements. It also argues that Islamists later succeeded in consolidating their control within the GNC, leveraging their alliances to pass laws that excluded their political opponents. These elections marked a turning point in Libya after the overthrow of Gaddafi, representing the country's first democratic experiment in building a new political system despite the challenges inherited from the previous era. The paper examines the electoral system, key competitors, election results, and internal conflicts within the GNC, concluding that Islamist dominance after 2012 challenges the idea of a liberal victory.

Rights groups and social movements in Egypt, including the April 6 Youth Movement developed the Transitional Justice Law based on previous experiences worldwide such as the South African one. Tunisia, which was the starting point of the Arab revolutions, beat Egypt to it by cooperating with the Ministry of Justice in South Africa. In 2003, Morocco established the Equity and Reconciliation Commission to look into human rights abuses from 1956-1999. This paper discusses the possibility of implementing the notion of transitional justice in Egypt and tries to use an approach that puts the national reconciliation and transitional justice mechanisms in their wider framework, i.e. democratic transition and institutional reform based on negotiations with political forces. The paper explores the philosophy of transitional justice, the organizational qualities that contribute to its success and the conditions that help overcome any arising challenges or possible resistance.

This paper explores the difficulties of the city and governorate of Kirkuk, specifically the problems from its diverse composition. Kirkuk has been described as a “microcosm of Iraq”, in recognition of the ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity in the region. This gives added impetus to finding a resolution to the difficulties of governance in the governorate-city: a solution to the problems in Kirkuk could have positive reverberations for the rest of Iraq.The governorate’s problems began in the wake of the discovery of oil there, with a gradual effort towards “Arabization” of the population there undertaken by the then-government of Saddam. This led to the formation of clear ethnic fault lines, which became clearer following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. At that point, Kirkuk became even more polarized, serving to further entrench the problems of governance in the region. Based on the existing literature on Kirkuk, on the Iraqi constitution and the experience of government in Iraq since 2003, this paper proposes consociational democracy as the preferred approach to resolving Kirkuk’s long-outstanding issues, including the disputes resulting from religious and ethnic differences typical of pluralist societies.

The dominant-party system as theorized by political literature is examined through the case of Israel. At first glance, the 2015 elections in Israel reinforce the view that the country is in transformation to a dominant party system, rather than a stage where a dominant party governs it. This confirms the theoretical political literature, which also makes this distinction. The paper argues that the current stage may be a prelude to the dominant-party stage, especially if Israeli policies continue down their current path. The path in question undermines the democratic foundations of the Israeli political system, cementing right-wing discourse as the dominant position in both state and the public sphere. This trend is likely to continue so long as opposing camps remain entrenched. Regional and international climates reinforce the right's discourse; which Netanyahu has strengthened during his years in power. If his successful policy of managing the conflict with the Palestinians without reaching a solution or paying a price continues, this trend will become further entrenched. In four sections, this paper overviews the theoretical debate regarding the notion of the dominant-party system, analyses the results of the general election in Israel, then presents a sociological analysis of the election results. It concludes with a discussion of the results in the context of the concept of the dominant-party system.

This study examines Israel's relationship with countries in the Horn of Africa and surveys a series of interventions that have taken place. It addresses in particular Israel's connections with Ethiopia and Eritrea and briefly touches on Israel's meddling in the 1950s and 1960s in Sudan and Yemen. The study looks at Israeli intervention in Africa from the prism of Israel as a spearhead for colonial countries, most notably the United States, whose mission is to work against Arab causes and against Soviet influence in Africa. The study argues that the support Israel received from colonial powers gave it a significant part of what the newly-independent and newly-formed African states needed, and that based on this experience Israel was able to exploit the needs of many African countries for weapons and training. This came both in terms of weapons purchase, use and maintenance, in addition to training armies and security forces. The paper also examines how Israel exploited African countries' need for technical help in vital areas such as agriculture and medical services.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s call for national dialogue marks a critical turning point in the nation’s recent politics. This paper presents the conditions that led to Bashir’s call for the first time after his nearly 25-year rule, and describes the serious and genuine nature of this call, as well as the positions of the opposing parties. It then goes on to explain some of the challenges that might hinder the success of Bashir’s call for dialogue, in particular the extent of concessions that president Bashir and his ruling party will have to make in order for the dialogue to be successful. It further examines the extent of the flexibility that the civil and armed oppositions should maintain if this last opportunity is not to be missed to save the country from falling into a state of turmoil. This internal Sudanese situation is read within the context of the regional and international conflicts that impact the call for dialogue. Finally, the paper sets out the possible negative and positive impacts of the international situation regarding the possibility of Sudan’s recovery from its current deteriorating situation.

This study examines US foreign policy and the changes that occurred under former President Donald Trump, compared to other post-Cold War administrations, assessing their impact on the future of US hegemony and the liberal international system, with projections for current president Joe Biden's rule. Two main questions arise: First, what foreign policies did Trump pursue? Second, what impact do they have on the future of US hegemony and the liberal international order? The analysis studies the concept of hegemony in international relations theory. It concludes with three possible scenarios awaiting the future of US hegemony under Biden's rule, with his administration likely to move between partial reform and catastrophic failure.