Latest Articles

Book Title: Protest Movements in the Arab Homeland: Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon and Bahrain [Arabic]

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 paper presents the findings of a number of public opinion polls surrounding public attitudes towards the Palestinian Cause and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The author focuses on three distinct themes/questions: Do respondents believe that the Palestinian Cause concerns all Arabs, or merely the Palestinians themselves? The second theme concerns Arab public opinion towards the peace treaties signed by the Arab states and Israel. The third theme covers Arab public support for, and opposition, the official recognition of Israel by their governments. The results show a wide-reaching and deep consensus across the countries surveyed in support of pan-Arab solidarity with the Palestinians, and in opposition to official recognition of Israel by their governments. The Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel was the most accepted such agreement, supported by 27% of the aggregate respondents, contributed to by 44% of Egyptians, and opposed by 54%.

The book analyzes the Algerian Hirak through political, social, and media studies to explore its context, activists, dynamics, and its political, social, and symbolic dimensions, along with its impact on Algeria's democratic transition.

In this study, the researcher builds on the idea he presented in a previous study on “Symbolic Liberalism”, which he used to describe the responses of social sciences to the ailments of late modernity. This modernity is characterized by a blend, where it is defined as classical liberalism but politically illiberal. The study argues that this modernity is undergoing polarization across various societies, including on university campuses and in the media. This is evident through high levels of intolerance that have surfaced in discussions on political, cultural, and social issues, where bias and taking sides prevail over the use of strong, persuasive arguments. This intolerance comes from both the left and the right, manifesting in what is known as "cancel culture" on both sides. The spread of "over-safety culture" among administrative officials has led to hasty decisions and sanctions against some university professors, merely for using certain references in class or for not providing prior warnings to students, all within an atmosphere of fear. The study provides examples from the United States and France, often driven by symbolic liberals. Following this, provide a case related to the ongoing war in Gaza.

This paper explores the philosophical context of the of political culture on the French radical left. Radical left refers to a group consisting of political and civil activists, intellectuals, writers, scholars, and politicians who assert their commitment to the priority of equality in economic and social conditions over values of freedom, justice, and citizenship. Unlike the moderate left, they believe that the satisfaction of equality claims requires the overthrow of the capitalist system and the abolition of the market economy. In the first section, the paper argues that the thought of the French moderate left, unlike the moderate left in other democratic countries, did not favour a break with the radical left and continued to share with it the idea that true liberation requires eradicating the causes of exploitation and alienation. Even though the moderate left adopted, when it held power, pragmatic policies and committed itself to the respect of democracy and constitutional order, it did not give up the idea of total societal transformation. The second section distinguishes the culture of the new radical left from that of the extreme Marxist radical left in its Trotskyist and Maoist forms. The third section traces the philosophical background of French new radical leftist discourse, writings, and methods.

This study investigates the role of the police apparatus in Egypt during the 2011 revolution and the subsequent counter-revolution following the 2013 coup. It begins by examining the relationships between the Military Council, President Mohamed Morsi, and the police apparatus. The study then explores how the Ministry of Interior and its security agencies reverted to their previous repressive practices, including extrajudicial killings and torture. The research highlights that the security apparatus remained fragmented, marked by overlapping authorities and a focus on resource competition rather than coordination. However, the existential threat posed by the 2011 revolution compelled the apparatus to unify against the tangible threat of popular unrest. Following 2013, the military, security and intelligence agencies furthered the suppression of opposition in various forms, largely evading accountability.

Russia has not specified its national interests in the Middle East or the Arab World since the 1990s. This paper discusses Russia’s shift toward a more active and effective role in the Middle East, in particular after Vladimir Putin came to power. Putin’s attempts to strengthen Russia in the Middle East were driven by a mixture of nostalgia and strategic national interests. With the events of the Arab Spring, Russia sensed that Arab revolutions could result in geostrategic changes in the region, which may not comply with its growing ambitions. It is this background against which Russia’s different stances toward each Arab Spring country and the outcomes of their respective uprisings can be read. Putin expressed anti-change reservations in Libya and Egypt, and even more so in Syria, making it one of the major actors in the Syrian crisis. At the same time, however, Moscow had no strong stance on Yemen, Tunisia, or Bahrain. The motives behind Russia’s role can be understood through a look at its internal situation, which is being influenced by waves of democratic change in the Arab Region, as well as its impact on the future of Central Asian countries, particularly Russia’s allies (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Belarus). This paper discusses all of these entanglements in the context of the current Arab situation.

Hardly a day passes without seeing or hearing the terms 'extremism' or 'extremists.' Used today to describe political views and attitudes, or methods in political action, the terms today are linked to particular images, and hold specific implications charged with prejudice, half-truths, and presumption. This paper asks: Is the term extremism useful to understand the ideas, views, or practices of those who are labeled as such? Are there common traits among those labeled as extremist that renders this label a useful concept in the classification of the ideas of political groups and their objectives and methods? Or, is 'extremist' simply an expression of a negative attitude agreed to by those with a specific view with the aim of ostracizing specific groups? It then poses an even larger and more critical question: How do groups of people reach the point of burning bridges with existing reality in order to carry out a fight using violent methods? The paper argues that analyzing ideology per se to reach an answer to this question is futile, be this ideology nationalistic, religious, classist, or otherwise.

Since the publication of Horowitz's Ethnic Groups in Conflict, comparative political scientists have increasingly converged on their classification of ethnic identities. But there is no agreement on the definition that justifies this classification— and the definitions that individual scholars propose do not match their classifications. I propose a definition that captures the conventional classification of ethnic identities in comparative political science to a greater degree than the alternatives. According to this definition, ethnic identities are a subset of identity categories in which membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with, descent (described here simply as descent-based attributes). I argue, on the basis of this definition, that ethnicity either does not matter or has not been shown to matter in explaining most outcomes to which it has been causally linked by comparative political scientists. These outcomes include violence, democratic stability, and patronage.