Latest Articles

This study reassesses the experience of political openness in Algeria within the analytical and explanatory categories of political economy. It is built on the premise that the transition from a totalitarian authoritarian regime to a democratic one presupposes the transition from a rentier economy linked to the external market and dominated by rentier groups, to a productive economy based on the national bourgeoisie exploitation of local labour to create wealth. The study argues that the experience of democratic transition in Algeria faltered due to the failure of the rentier groups to undergo capitalist transformation that could have allowed the emergence of the two main sides of the democratic equation: the bourgeoisie and the working class. The political elites that control the rentier economy were willing to accept political but not economic reforms that could have led to a reconsideration of the hegemonic relations within society and liberated it from the grip of power. In this regard, the failure of the economic reforms introduced by the Hamrouche government (1989 - 1991) was a prelude to the disruption of the democratic transition and prevention of the development of a civil society capable of gaining its independence from authority and, on the other hand, the independence of the Algerian state from the global market.

This study provides a discussion and analysis of the circumstances that led to the military occupation of the core of the state and government in contemporary Algeria, and the ramifications for the process of building political and legal institutions, and the democratic transition experience. The study employs the concepts of populism and neopatrimonialism to paint a picture of the path taken by the government in Algeria since independence. Populism describes the ideology that sanctified the one-party state and revolutionary legitimacy, while neopatrimonialism is the resulting shape taken by the exercise of political power. Framing these two concepts within their historical context provides an understanding of the circumstances of the army's seizure of power and its identification with the state. It clarifies the reasons for its refusal to redistribute power within the society after the establishment of political pluralism in the 1989 Constitution.

This presentation reviews the development of public administration research in the Arab world and its relationship to public policies, with a focus on research that relied on studying the development of the field in the US experience. It suggests that the political, economic and social environment, as well as values remain essential determinants of academic and practical work in public administration, and that the pursuit of global frameworks and models remains subject to an understanding of environmental factors. The same applies to the field of public policy. Siyasat Arabiya thus devoted this special issue to shed light on the field of public administration and public policies in the Arab world. It presented comparative perspectives of the status of public administration research and public policies, with a view to asking questions, inviting researchers and those interested in public administration in the Arab region to consider issues and research methodologies in matters of public affairs, and calling for the development of a research and teaching agenda that engages with points of intellectual and methodological discord that characterize the field in the West.

Scholarship explains impediments to democratic transition in Middle Eastern countries as forms of neopatrimonialism - a combination of patrimonial tradition and cosmetic electoral procedures. However, this approach conflates two spheres of governance: firstly, the government as a sphere of appointed or elected politicians, secondly, the state's bureaucracy as a sphere of administrative staff necessary for the government to execute its planned actions. The impediments Hamas governments (2006-2007) faced highlight the difference between the two spheres. Accordingly, I conceptually differentiate between two types of government: government in office and government in power. While the Hamas government was supposed to rule, the administrative personnel refused to comply. Thus, the elected government in office faced local-institutional and external constraints which prevented its functioning, and provoked power struggles that led to internecine war and the collapse of the electoral democracy.

ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﺣﺪى أﻫﻢ ﻣﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻴﻮم؛ أي اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ اﻟﺤﺎﺳﻢ اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﻴﺘﻬﺎ واﻟﻤﺤﻔﺰ ﻟﺘﻄﻮرﻫﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪأ اﻟﺴﻴﺎدة اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻴﺔ، وﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﻜﺰة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪأ اﻟﺤﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔ، وﻫﻤﺎ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎن ﻳﻌﻤﻼن ﺑﺸﻜﻞ داﺋﻢ ﻓﻲ اﺗﺠﺎﻫﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ. وﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ أزﻣﺔ ﺑﺮوز اﻟﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻮي وﺳﻴﺎدﺗﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ا ﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ. وﺗﺨﻠﺺ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ ﻳﻤﻴﻞ إﻟﻰ أن ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺗﻔﺎوﺗﺎت وﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ واﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ وﻋﺮﻗﻴﺔ. وﻣﻊ أن ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ وﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﻞ ﺗﺘﻌﺪاﻫﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ، ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ذاﺗﻪ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻣﺎﺛﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺎت اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ، اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻄﻐﻰ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ أﺣﺪ اﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ا¤ﺧﺮ؛ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ أﺣﺪ ﺧﻴﺎرﻳﻦ: ﻧﻈﺎم ﻧﺨﺒﻮي أو ﻧﻈﺎم ﺷﻌﺒﻮي، ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﺛﻞ ا¤ن، ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮاﺟﻬﺔ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻀ ﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺣﺎد وﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ، وﻳﻔﺘﺢ اﻟﺒﺎب ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠ ﺎ أﻣﺎم ﺑﺮوز ﺻﻴﻐﺔ دﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ رﺑﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮة ﻟﻠﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺒﻠﺪ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ، اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ، اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻮﻳﺔ، اﻟﻨﺨﺒﻮﻳﺔ. Tis paper discusses one of the most pressing challenges facing liberal democracies, specifically, the tensions between the concept of popular consent (or "sovereignty of the people") and the protection of individual freedoms. Tese two aspects of democracy have been in liberal democracies across time and space, argues the author, but the paper examines in detail the rise of a populist bloc in the United States. Te author asserts that the self-contradiction contained within democracy reflects social and economic differences and not ethnic or cultural variance. Te author concludes that the conflict between these two aspects of democracy produces a system of government which favors one aspect over the other. Tis, the author says, creates sharp social conflict in America and could give rise to a novel form of democracy there.

This study examines the ability of network technology to challenge despotism regimes. It thus applies two theoretical approaches. The first is the "Prisoner's dilemma" and the "despot/jailer's dilemma" and the second is the "case study", which studies a number of cases of "network technology", whether used by protest groups or by authoritarian regimes, to determine the extent (and direction) of their impact in practice. The study concludes that network technology — through challenging the logic of the "prisoner's dilemma" and reversing it to become the "jailer's dilemma" — can, theoretically, pose an element of weakness for despotism regimes. However, in reality, network technology can be used by these regimes with the same effectiveness, to respond to mass protests supported by technology. This indicates that network technology can be seen as a neutralizing factor, the impact of which should be studied relative to the impact of other factors.

Civil society rests on the principle of economic independence from politics, deemed to be a long-standing precondition to limiting the despotism of a political authority and its ability to wreak havoc on society. The paper poses the question of why civil society has thus far failed to materialize in Algeria, despite the existence of political pluralism in the country dating to the 1989 Constitution. The author contends that the persistence of rentierism in the Algerian economy has enabled the country’s government to prevent the rise of a genuine civil society in Algeria, despite the de jure acceptance of political pluralism in the country. The government has been able to use the levers of a rentier economy to subdue the political elites and dominate society, effectively controlling the political fallout of economic liberalization. The paper goes on to survey the political economic context, which led to the failure of a democratic transition in Algeria, by exploring how private capital was unable to echo the catalyzing role played by the European bourgeoisie in the democratization and political modernization of their continent.

The presence of the external factor is usually related to the context of the popular hirak, the periods of political transition and the transitional phases in many countries. This factor is evident in countries with a geopolitical position in regional and international competition. This study discusses the variable of the external factor in the 22 February 2019 hirak in Algeria by examining the limits of international and regional interventions in steering the course of the popular hirak compared to other Arab cases where the external factor seemed to be more influential. It aims to discuss the determinants of Algeria's relations with regional and international powers and to explain the issue of the lack of external interference in the popular hirak, ending with the modalities of the future of the turbulent political path and discussing the possibilities of transformation from abroad. The study concludes that the lack of regional and international intervention in the popular hirak is mainly related to geopolitical and strategic constraints, far from value and normative considerations. The behaviour of external forces is determined by Algeria's geopolitical situation. The risks of instability in the country would create highly complex security challenges in the Mediterranean region. Added to this is the importance of Algeria in assessing the strategic balances in the region, especially for European security.