Latest Articles

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 seeks to understand Arab public attitudes towards Turkey. The author goes beyond Arab perceptions of Turkey’s regional policies, taking in the general Arab perception of the Turkish people, and the evaluation of Turkey’s democracy and political advancement among Arab respondents. The author reports that one-third of the Egyptian public has a broadly positive view of Turkish society and of Turkish policies. The results also suggest that divisions in Arab attitudes towards specific issues, such as the conflicts in Iraq and in Syria and the Sunni-Shia divide, contribute to a similarly fractured Arab attitude towards Turkey across the wider region. Most Arab respondents voiced the view that Turkey treats the Arab peoples with dignity and respect, while acknowledging that Ankara used its regional policies to advance its own interests.

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.

One of the most important gains of Tunisia’s revolution has been that elections are no longer subject to interior ministry supervision. A look at these elections reveals a process managed by a permanent constitutional body, the Independent High Authority for Elections, which in itself marks a revolutionary success. These events are read within the context of the assassination of Constituent Assembly member Mohamed Brahmi, which caused many to worry that the democratic path would be hindered, as in other Arab Spring countries. More than the elections mechanism, this paper argues that success can also be attributed to the Troika alliance, especially the Ennahda party. It shows how the neutrality of the military institution and the great role played by the country’s General Labor Union in bridging the gap between Tunisian opponents through national dialogue, have largely contributed in the success of the elections.

The premise of this study is the belief that there is a crisis in contemporary liberal democracy resulting from the tension between two traditions: one democratic and the other liberal. The spread of right-wing populism in the West is not a new phenomenon, but rather a new manifestation of what may be called a permanent crisis of democracy. The study distinguishes populism from totalitarian ideological movements that gain popular support through demagogy and incitement against the other and reviews existing tensions in the structure of liberal democracy. The paper finds that populist rhetoric is channeled through tensions in the structure of liberal democracy and translates social anger into criticism of the democratic system itself, by using one component of a complex democratic system against another.

The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, in Doha, organized two seminars dealing with the reality of the popular movement and its prospects and the mechanisms of democratic transition in Sudan and Algeria within the framework of a series of seminars held by the Center for Political Studies at the Center.

This study tackles the structure of the Yemeni state, focusing on the potential for federalism (or the "unionist" model) in the country. The first of five sections conceptualizes the federal state, the second deals with early demands to change the state structure while the third reviews the crystallization of these demands, and the fourth presents different political forces' visions of the state structure in the comprehensive National Dialogue Conference. The final section addresses the concerns and challenges regarding the transition to federalism. The author concludes that any political settlement to the conflict in Yemen will inevitable move the structure of the Yemeni state towards federalism and recommends that for the transition to the federal state to be successful, it must be gradual and win unanimous support from across Yemeni society.

This study employs digital sociology approaches to trace networked communities and the contexts of their formation, development, or disintegration in relation to the social and political environment in which they emerge, with a particular focus on the impact of their culture on shaping public opinion in Morocco. The study assumes that contemporary communities, despite the digital nature of their medium, remain structurally connected to their traditional meaning grounded in similarity and cohesion, while being reconfigured within a networked society that fosters the rise of a "mass self". Based on network analysis, the study explores the transition of the individual from an autonomous unit to an active "collective person" within decentralized networked spaces that have contributed to reshaping the relationship between power and society, and between individuals and institutions. It also highlights the shift of political and symbolic conflict to the networked sphere and the emergence of new forms of participation, mobilization, and influence, turning networked communities into a social force capable of shapin – and at times producing – public opinion.

This paper argues that hybrid regimes help to create an environment that encourages the transformation of political disputes into identity conflicts. In such regimes, there is no resolution to the advantage of a particular party, since there is neither full authoritarianism that prevents the existence of any form of competition, rivalry, or conflict, or full democracy that permits the existence of democratic competition according to principles of pluralism, the peaceful transfer of power, and legal guarantees. In the environment of these hybrid regimes there are some features of democracy and many features of authoritarianism, and so political competition usually begins as a dispute over points of view and intellectual assumptions and ends up as an identity conflict leading to the dissociation of society.

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%.