Latest Articles

​Five years prior, the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies brought together a group of young activists whose dedication and courage gave ris eto what would become the Arab Spring. The group of activists, gathered again in Doha on January 15-16, 2016, appeared to have been completely changed by the intervening months. With the initial ecstasy of the fall of tyrants across the region now faded, the young revolutionary activists had matured ideologically and politically. It was a maturity born of suffering and setbacks, and revealed a realism towards the coming battle for freedom. One unchanging fact was their continued hope for freedom, and their belief in its possibility.

​This introductory essay highlights the considerations that prompted this in-depth look at the state of political science in Arab academic institutions, and made it essential. For political science, and the humanities and social sciences more generally, play a central role in any societal renaissance. Our experience of teaching graduate level political science at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies has already indicated to us that the situation of the discipline in Arab universities was not at all rosy. This impression was confirmed by many studies, conferences, and forums organized by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, which revealed a huge gap of knowledge in the field. This made it imperative to undertake an evaluation of what Arab universities were offering in their efforts to guide students to master the discipline up to global standards. The studies in this special issue, and the following one, highlight a multi-layered crisis in the field, impacting teaching, research, and employment prospects. The studies point to the late arrival of the discipline in the region, the limited areas covered, inadequate resources, and a lag behind international achievements in the field. The crisis is complicated by a number political, economic, social and structural obstacles that hold the discipline back from achieving its potential. This introduction summarizes and assesses the findings of the studies included in this special issue, and the second part in the following one, one emergence, evolution and achievements of the discipline, and the impediment obstructing its progress and maturity in the region. It focuses on case studies from Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, and Tunisia, adding surveys and reflections on methodologies and theoretical challenges. It concludes that despite some major achievements and progress, the biggest obstacle to progress in the discipline remains the absence of viable scholarly communities, both regionally and nationally in in each country. The essay offers proposals to address this problem.

This study examines the foundations and development of teaching political science in Sudanese universities. It begins with the establishment of Gordon Memorial College in 1902 which became later the University of Khartoum. This is because it is the oldest Sudanese university, and the first to teach political science. Influenced by the objectives of the Gordon Memorial College formation, the attachment with the University of London before independence, and the early lecturers who taught there, the department of political science in the university adopted curricula pursued in British universities. In addition, the study discusses the expansion of political science to include Umdurman Islamic University and other universities. Moreover, it analyzes the intellectual perspectives that influenced the development of teaching political science in Sudanese universities, curricula development, means of training, and the impact of politics and policies on political science teaching.

In recent years, phrases such as “migrant crisis” and “illegal migration” have gained increased currency as means of describing larger waves of migration to Europe. International law rests on the assumption that refuge and asylum are always “legitimate”, thus failing to provide a justification for the use of terms such as “illegal migration”. As a response, in this paper the author adopts the term “illicit migration” to refer to undeclared migration which does not pass through official channels, and which, he argues, is a clearer expression of the phenomenon currently underway, in which large numbers of migrants seek to secretly enter the borders of their destination countries. The topic under discussion has particular importance due to the reflexive way in which European countries tie migration to extremism. This has spurred European nations to increase reliance on an “iron shield” erected to isolate themselves from those landing on their shores from the southern end of the Mediterranean, and with no distinctions made between refugees legitimately seeking refuge from armed conflict and those seeking to “ride the wave”.

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 fall of authoritarian regimes across the Arab region has uncovered a range of structural fissures within Arab society, unleashing unprecedented, pernicious exploitation of identity politics adopted by a range of local and international actor. Today, sectarian prejudice and stereotypes have seeped into not only the media in the Arab region, but also its academic discourse.

Military interventions in Sudanese politics can be attributed to a number of factors, most pertinently: excessive politicization throughout society, social institutions, trades unions and syndicates as well as educational and religious institutions. In this sense, the Sudanese was not an exception, merely one of many highly politicized institutions. This paper concludes that the three different military coups which took power in Sudan were only able to do so with the aiding and abetting of civilian political forces, such as the National Umma Party, the Islamic Front and an array of leftist forces all—to varying extents—colluded with the military to further their political aims. With the military ranks reflecting wider societal politicization, military coups were effectively an extension of the political process by other means.

It is difficult to imagine an influential presence for Salafism in Turkey despite the talk of the "spread" of Salafism there. This must be accompanied by methodological questions that articulate the challenges related to the intellectual environment of the Turkish society. It also relates to the historical context and political competition amongst the Sunni community. One question is "How could Salafism have such a powerful presence in a Sufi society, whose empire had adopted the 'opinion approach' of Abu Hanifa and Maturidi and whose modern republic had adopted the philosophy of the West and secularism?" Both are contrary to the Salafi approach based on tradition and the literal commitment to the texts of the Quran, Hadith and the sayings of 'al-Salaf a-Saleh'. Another question is "How can Salafism overcome the historical and psychological barrier in Turkey that formed as a result of Ottoman-Saudi disputes at the beginning of the nineteenth century and whose intellectual effects have continued until a recent time?"

ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮاﻛﺰ اﻟﺒﺤﻮث واﻟﻤﻨﺎﺑﺮ اﻋﻼﻣﻴﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﻟ{ﻓﻜﺎر واﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎن ﻟﻬﺎ دور ﺣﺎﺳﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻴﺔ، واﻟﻤﻨﺎخ اﻟﺬي أﺷﺎﻋﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ "ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ". وﺗﺒﻴﻦ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﺴﻤﺎت ا ﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺬه اﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل اﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻨﻊ اﻟﻘﺮار اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻲ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ، ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﻨﺎول اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﺎﺗﺖ ادارة اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻀ ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻠﻘﺎﺗﻬﺎ اﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ إزاء اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﻣﻦ دوﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﺮ، ﺑﺤﻴﺚ ﺟﺮى اﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻪ ﻣﺎ داﻣﺖ ﻗﻄﺮ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻓﻲ دورﻫﺎ ﻣﺼﺪرًا ﻟﺘﻤﻮﻳﻞ اﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺎت ارﻫﺎﺑﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﺘﻄﺮﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق اوﺳﻂ، وﺗﺠﻴّﺮ ﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﻨﺎﻋﻤﺔ ﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ اﺳﻼم اﻟﺮادﻳﻜﺎﻟﻲ، ﻓﻤﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻘﻮل ﻃﺮح اﻟﺴﺆال إن ﻛﺎن ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴًﺎ اﺳﺘﻤﺮار إدارة دوﻧﺎﻟﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ ﻓﻲ "اﺳﺘﺌﺠﺎر أﺻﻮل" ﻣﻦ دوﻟﺔ ﺗﺆﻳﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ اﺳﻼم. واﻟﻬﺪف، ﺑﺤﺴﺐ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺤﺎﺟﺞ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ، ﻫﻮ أن ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻗﻄﺮ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻬﺮ، ﻣﻜﺒّﻠﺔ اﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺘﺤﺮك وﻓﺎﻗﺪة اﻟﻤﺒﺎدرة، وﻓﻲ اﻧﺘﻈﺎر ﺳﺎﻛﻦ ﺧﺎرج ﺣﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺮح اﻗﻠﻴﻤﻲ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ﻗﻄﺮ، ﻣﺮاﻛﺰ اﻟﺒﺤﻮث اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ، ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ. This paper highlights US research centers and platforms producing ideas and literatures that have played a crucial role in shaping US foreign policy and the climate that has shaped it in the formation of the "Trump's World", and outlines the main features of these writings in influencing US foreign policy-making. Furthermore, the paper discusses the intellectual elements that the current US administration is drawing form some of its basic premises on the attitude towards Qatar. These writings emphasizes that as long as Qatar continues to play its role as a source of funding for terrorist and extremist groups in the Middle East, the question raises weather Tramp administration would continue to "lease assets" from a country that supported such a version of Islam, but the goal is to keep Qatar inactive and waiting outside the regional theater.

This paper addresses problematic aspects of the concept of "terrorism" from within its present-day setting, exploring the futile conflict between "terrorism" and "counter-terrorism" which has been utilized to marginalize the discourse on democracy, justice and national liberation. The paper argues that the categorization of an event as a terrorist act based on the identity of the perpetrator, and regardless of the victims, leads to a logical fallacy. One consequence of categorizing all armed acts by non-state actors as "terrorist" is the erosion of distinctions between terrorist acts and acts of national liberation, resistance to foreign occupation and armed opposition to state violence against civilians. One conclusion of the paper is that blurring the distinctions between terrorist and legitimate acts is counterproductive to the war on terror.