Latest Articles

The potential impact of the Covid- 19 pandemic on populist governments has been the subject of a heated debate among specialists. There are scholars for who the pandemic will negatively impact populist governments. Here, populist governments are perceived as ill-equipped to respond to the multifaced challenges risen by the complexity of the pandemic. Conversely, many scholars that argue that the pandemic will strengthen populist governments because populism flourishes during crises. This article contests these two narratives. It asserts that any evaluation of the impact of the pandemic on populist governments should distinguish between their actions and their discourse. Thus, the study undertakes an analysis of US president Trump’s discourse, demonstrating that during the first year of the pandemic, it is twofold. First appears a “disconnected discourse” that continuously questions the reality of the pandemic, despite the important proactive actions taken by his government to mitigate the pandemic's economic, social, and sanitary impacts. Second, a “demonstrative discourse” arises, in which the pandemic was instrumentalized to enhance the legitimacy of one of the most important and controversial elements of the populist discourse: the idea of external threat.

The post-Cold War environment has produced a world distribution structure different from that of the system prevailing in the 1945-1991 period. Geographical regions of pivotal value have emerged as important arenas of competition among the great powers, each drawing strength from the prominent features of location and resources. Referencing these same features, this study examines the geopolitical importance of Arab and Islamic countries within the international system. It posits a set of factors to inform an understanding of the international system's evolving nature: energy, the distribution of power and hegemonies in the geopolitical spaces of Europe and Asia.

This study sheds light on European-Russian relations in the energy field, a complex relationship where the political, economic, and social interact. Russia, today, is a key partner in European security issues, and it is impossible to talk about European security without addressing the Russian role and its effect on the European security system. Russia is also the largest exporter of energy to Europe and its main trading partner. The EU, conversely, is the largest consumer of Russian energy exports, and the EU states have important trade relations with Russia. All this makes European-Russian relations in the energy sphere subject to tension between pressure for cooperation and conflict over interests in the balances of power in the international order.

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.

ﺗﺒﻨ ﻰ اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﻮن اوروﺑﻴﻮن واﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﻮن واÈ ﻋﻼم واﻟﺮأي اﻟﻌﺎم، ﺑﺤﻤﺎسٍ، ﺳﻨﺔ 2011، ﻣﺎ ﺳُ ﻤﻲ اﻟﺮﺑﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ. وﺗﻌﻬﺪ اﻻﺗﺤﺎد ا وروﺑﻲ ﺑﺪﻋﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت اﻟﺘﺤﻮّل اﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺑﺴﺨﺎء. وﻣﻊ ذﻟﻚ، ﻟﻢ ﻳﺮقَاوروﺑﻴﻮن إﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى وﻋﻮدﻫﻢ؛ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺤﻮّل اﻻﺗﺤﺎد اوروﺑﻲ ودوﻟﻪ اﻋﻀﺎء، ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﻮّل اﻟﺜﻮرات اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﻌﻨﻒ واﻟﺤﺮب اﻫﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺒﻠﺪان، واﺳﺘﻌﺎدة اﻟﺤﻜﻢ اﻻﺳﺘﺒﺪادي ﻓﻲ أﺧﺮى، إﻟﻰ ﻣﺘﻔﺮﺟﻴﻦ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻠﻮن ﻣﻊ ﻋﻮارض ازﻣﺔ ﺑﺪﻟ ﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺎر اﻟﺘﻄﻮرات. وﺑﺪﻟ ﺎ ﻣﻦ أن ﻳﺆﺛ ﺮ اﻻﺗﺤﺎد اوروﺑﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ أﻃﻠﻘﻬﺎ اﻟﺮﺑﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ، أﺛ ﺮت ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﺎت ﺑﻘﻮة ﻓﻲ أوروﺑﺎ. ﺗﺤﻠﻞ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﺞ اﻻﺗﺤﺎد اوروﺑﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ "اﻟﺮﺑﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ"، وأدواﺗﻪ ﻓﻲ ذﻟﻚ، وأوﻟﻮﻳﺎﺗﻪ، وﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﻮّﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪى اﻟﺴﻨﻮات اﻟﻤﺎﺿﻴﺔ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: اﻻﺗﺤﺎد اورﺑﻲ، اﻟﺮﺑﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ، ﺗﻮﻧﺲ. In 2011, European politicians, diplomats, media, and publics enthusiastically embraced the so-called Arab Spring. Te EU pledged to generously support transformation processes initiated in the region. Yet, Europeans – as other third parties – have not lived up to their promises. Against the backdrop of the Arab uprisings turning into violence and civil war in some countries and authoritarian restoration in others, the EU and its member states have been largely reduced to being bystanders, dealing with the symptoms of crises rather than impacting – let alone shaping – the path of developments. Indeed, rather than the EU impacting on the dynamics unleashed by the Arab Spring, these dynamics have strongly impacted on Europe. In order to explain this phenomenon, this paper analyzes the EU's approaches, instruments and priorities – and how the latter have changed over the course of the last years.

This article looks at Algeria's security policy in general and its security doctrine in particular, analysing its changes and dilemmas in a turbulent regional environment and in the context of an internal Hirak. It argues that these doctrines have undergone minor changes to meet regional security needs, which precludes fundamental change at this stage. It also argues that the tension between the moral-normative imperative and the security imperative, on the one hand, and the principle of dual non-interference (political and military), on the other, constitute two major dilemmas confronting Algerian politics and security doctrine. Starting from these two elements, the article, after setting out my concept of the subject, examines the formation and nature of Algerian politics, ideology, and transformations. It then looks at the constitutional decision on the participation of Algerian armed forces in international peacekeeping operations, analysing their context (domestic and foreign), their motives and justifications, and the reservations they face. Finally, it analyses Algeria's regional security strategy as an alternative to intervention. The article comes to three main conclusions. First, there is a limited adjustment to the issue of external interference depending on the needs of the security interest. Second, the end of the absolute refusal to use armed forces outside the borders. Third, it is likely that the tension between moral-normative and security considerations will escalate if the unrest continues within its geographical boundaries.

This study investigates the circumstances under which military governments leave power. It shows that there is no single path to get the military out of power, as there are no general rules for all cases. Nevertheless, several lessons are learned of which the most important is that military officers never relinquish power on their own. Rather, they are usually forced to leave it. In most cases, forcing the military to hand over authority requires a democratic opposition bloc that reaches a national consensus and agrees on a clear political strategy with an explicit goal. This will get the military out of power and establish a civilian government. A consensus or democratic bloc enables reformist democrats to change the balance of power for the benefit of democratic transition.

This paper examines the variables that could affect the attitude of armies towards revolutions. These variables are numerous and diverse, and they differ depending on the nature of the armies and the societies from which they emerge, as well as the international climate in which they exist. As such, the paper argues that the fate of revolutions is determined - with rare exceptions - by the attitude of the army in terms of its bias toward the revolution or toward the existing regime confronting it. The paper also explores societal factors and their role in determining the behavior of the army and its attitude towards revolution, especially in societies characterized by ethnic, religious, and sectarian diversity. The paper looks to Syria as a clear model of the phenomenon within the context of Arab revolutions and uprisings. The paper concludes that the ease or difficulty of predicting the behavior of armies towards revolutions varies between different cases given the multiplicity of factors that could affect it.

Since the time of President Thomas Jefferson, and on through the presidents of the 20th century, the United States has talked about itself as the propagator, protector, and defender of democracy around the world. Yet America has never showed any qualms of forming military and political alliances with authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The US justifies these international alliances on the basis that “not all dictatorships in the world are enemies of the United States, but all the United States’ enemies are dictatorships.” The US therefore adopted a two-track diplomacy: while working to spread democracy (directly or by means of international organizations and NGOs) the US has no issue in supporting autocratic governments when its interests are involved. How did US policy apply to the democratic transformation in the former Eastern bloc states in Europe on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently, when American values and interests went hand in hand, and how did it then apply to the Arab Spring of 2011, when US values and interests were congruent in some cases and out of sync in others, according to the situation in each country and its strategic importance from America’s perspective? What are the results of these policies and what differences emerge from such a comparison of the Arab and East Europe cases.

This study explores the concepts and premises related to youth movements, particularly as they relate to the democratic transition within the Arab Spring countries.