Latest Articles

​Over the past decade, political science in Algeria has faced a profound crisis, characterized by a decrease in student enrollment due to shrinking job opportunities for graduates. This follows a period of significant interest in this specialty, leading to its rapid spread across nearly half of the Algerian universities. After conducting interviews and analysing survey data from a sample of political science professors in Algerian universities, several findings emerged that underscore the existence of several crises facing the discipline related to identity, dissemination, and outcomes. Based on these findings, researchers have proposed solutions and alternatives to address the crisis and link political science to the job market and align it with Algeria's economic and social realities, ensuring the discipline remains globally relevant and adapts to evolving international developments.

The study presents the problems of structural politicization in political studies, and the danger of methodological debates transforming into political confrontations, a situation that has been repeated in the ongoing debate between the advocates and opponents of secularism. The study demonstrated that the necessity of the political dimension, and/or the political dependencies of every "scientific" approach to politics does not necessarily mean acceptance of unrestricted politicization. It is possible to acknowledge the political content of treatment without slipping into politicization. From this standpoint, criticism of underlying or structural politicization, as in Edward Said's criticism of Orientalism and Western Centralism, cannot be compared to the way that Israel's supporters crudely politicize US Middle East studies in their battle to hold it hostage to the interests of Israel and the extreme right. In the same vein, the study critically addresses the opinion that "area studies" in political science is marked by theoretical poverty and academic inferiority. The study itself leans towards the opinion that so called "theoretical studies" are in fact "area studies" that take western countries as the testing ground for political experiences and seek to generalize the results in the form of "theories" that enjoy universal validity.

This article addresses an epistemological question related to the methodological impasse in political science through a reading of selected conceptual orientations in Gregory Bateson's thought. It advances the hypothesis that methodological difficulty does not primarily stem from analytical tools as such, but rather from the underlying frameworks through which political action is understood. Drawing on an analytical-interpretive approach, the article examines concepts such as "dysfunction as a patterned regularity", the "double bind", and "second-order learning", with the aim of questioning linear modes of explanation in political analysis and approaching politics as a network of interrelated relations and paradoxical repetitions. The discussion also engages, comparatively, with selected contributions by Niklas Luhmann, Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, in order to highlight shifts in the production of meaning in analyses of power and to delineate the limits of dominant approaches. The article concludes that a Batesonian perspective offers epistemological possibilities for understanding political complexity by foregrounding context, relational dynamics, and patterned dysfunction, beyond models based on linear causality and predictive techniques.

Specialists in the philosophy of social sciences preach simplicity in choosing variables during research design, the aim of which is to avoid the complexity of abundance, reducing the clarity and logical consistency of the thesis. The rule of using limited variables is based on the methodological rule called the "Principle of Parsimony" which means that the most acceptable explanation is the simplest and stipulates the use of the lowest possible number of variables in order to explain the maximum possible number of phenomena. This study introduces this principle and examines the reasons for its absence from political research by assuming that the reason for the lack of parsimony in political research, and the tendency of researchers to use multiple variables, is the widespread "methodologist" tendency, which emerges as a type of excessive confidence in the reliability of the method.

The study centers on a major problem related to rational choice theory and its applications in international relations and foreign policy. It asks whether the selection process is subject to the principle of maximizing benefit according to this theory, or is subject to other principles, psychological processes and cognitive biases. The study reached conclusions that confirm that the selection process is in fact subject to a non-standard process; that is, it is not subject to continuous choices to benefit maximization, but there are other factors that lead to the selection of risk over gain, and here the psychological aspects overlap with the rational aspects in influencing the choice. This reveals that it is not possible to separate the school that focuses on the psychological aspects of the decision maker and the school that focuses on rational calculations, but rather that the two can be combined together within the framework of alternative theories complementary to rational choice theory, such as the perception theory.

This study assesses the discipline of International Relations in the Arab World, first by characterizing its current state-of-affairs and considering its challenges, then exploring its transformations. The study is based on a purposive sample of IR professors at Arab universities with faculties or departments teaching political science and IR. To survey the discipline by way of this sample, a three-part questionnaire was devised. The first section explores IR teaching at Arab universities; the second sheds light on the research interests of specialists in the field and their theoretical and practical orientations with regard to the study of international relations ir phenomena; and the third considers Arab academic institutions and knowledge production in the field.

​This paper examines the state of Political Science in Egypt, suggesting that the Egyptian school of Political Science is facing a crisis and analyses the reasons why. It particularly focuses on the experience of the Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Economics, Cairo University, as the first specialized school for Political Science in Egypt, in view of the increasing roles played by its graduates in the public sphere. The study focuses on three key dimensions: the perceptions of this scholarly community regarding the role entrusted to political science in Egyptian society and politics, the changes in academic curricula, and the ideological and political contexts influencing teaching and research in political science in Egypt. The study concludes that the crisis of political science in Egypt is twofold: the crisis within the field in general and specific issues within the Egyptian context itself.

This study conducts research on the traditional academic methods used in the Arab scholarly community. Specifically, it employs the case of legal science when addressing the following questions: Is the Arab academy in its field suffering from academic dependency? What forms does this take and what are the reasons behind it? Where does reviewing theoretical or conceptual frameworks of legal science fall in this? This study focuses on law as a method of social control in the methodological crisis undergone by the social sciences. This study refers to two crises examined by Arab legal science: identity crisis and functional crisis. These are illustrated by two main indicators: The gap between the quantitative growth of the number of law students and the weak production of legal research knowledge, the gap between the quantitative development of the educational institutions of law and of legal structures.

This text was fundamental to the crystallization of structuralist theory in international relations. It addresses one of the discipline’s major dilemmas: the dialectic of the relationship between actor and structure. It reveals the shortcomings of the interpretations offered by the prevailing structuralist theories (neorealism and world-system theory), which failed to grasp the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures, reducing the international system either to constraints imposed on actors or to structures generating behavioral patterns. However, by employing the “structuration theory” borrowed from sociology, US political scientist Alexander Want offers an expanded perspective that avoids reducing system structures to state actors (as neorealism does) or their reification in world- system theory. The scientific realist/structuration approach thus investigates the properties and dispositions of state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded, contributing to the reformulation of theoretical debate in the field of international relations, opening up broad horizons for understanding international dynamics and establishing a new research agenda that combines philosophical-scientific analysis with political-historical analysis.

This study adopts a comparative approach to investigate the impact of the reciprocal fears of internal and external parties on the stances of key actors during the 2011 transitions. Apparently, the uncertainty that accompanies any democratic elections has not been a local factor in the Arab cases because regional and international forces have an interest in hindering democracy, being a potential threat to the status quo. The study examines four interrelated problems related to external factors. It concludes that the external factors that have hindered democracy in non-Arab cases were not inevitable because addressing them seems to have been related to changes in the international system and the emergence of domestic democratic blocs that are able to exert pressure on external forces and get them to change their positions.