Latest Articles

Current scholarship on elections in authoritarian regimes has focused on exploring the relationship between elections and democratization, and it has generally used analytical frameworks and methods imported from the study of genuinely democratic elections to do so. These tendencies have kept scholars from asking a wide range of questions about the micro-level dynamics of authoritarian elections and the systematic differences among them. With these issues in mind, this review examines literature that investigates the purpose of elections in dictatorships; the electoral behavior of voters, candidates, and incumbents in these elections; and the link between elections and democratization. The review ends with a call to redirect the study of authoritarian elections toward uncovering and explaining the important differences among them.

The study defines the "external factor" and determines its impact on the transition process. The study notes that the role of these factors in transition is different from that of "democratization" if the external influence of the revolutions is minimal. This is especially so in the case of spontaneous popular revolutions where the external factor may be influential in the democratic transition, although its impact is decisive only when accompanied by facilitating domestic factors. The study shows the relationship between the external factor and the geostrategic location of the Arab state whereby the external factor becomes more important according to the importance of the state. The study follows the evolution of the principle of supporting democracy in US politics, which has been linked to US interests and has ended up supporting regime stability. It also monitors a regional and international trend of "promoting autocracy".

The concept of soft power continues to receive significant attention from researchers, relevant actors in the international community, and small and rising powers alike. This paper discusses the nature of soft power, how it works, how it can be employed, its effectiveness, and its limits. It critically engages with the existing literature on soft power and argues that soft power does not exist by itself, but rather is made. Accordingly, soft power is not just a strategy as is the case with smart power, nor it can be purchased in its raw form, as is the case with hard power, and it is not of unilateral negative nature, as is the case with sharp power. The paper asserts the need to distinguish between sources of soft power and its tools. It contends that soft power resources can be mobilized and directed towards the target using soft power tools. The paper aims to contribute to discussion of what soft power is and how it works; thus, it offers a theoretical framework on the working mechanism of soft power that takes into account using soft power against non-democratic systems: autocracy, totalitarian, or theocracy.

From an economic standpoint, this study aims to comprehend the reasons for the popular uprising outbreak, as well as the chances for democratic transition from a political economy angle. It examines the influence of the rentier state economic growth regime on the political prospects of citizens, particularly young people, who are convinced that such a regime will not lead to their ultimate safety, but rather to their economic marginalization due to the system's poor performance. It turns out that adopting a more comprehensive and long-term growth approach has become even more critical. As time goes by, it became evident that reform comes at a hefty cost on all fronts. Rather than being a tributary and assistance to the continuance of economic reforms, political reforms became an impediment and took on even greater importance than economic reform itself. The Algerian situation, according to the study, is an example of the intractable model of democratic transition in all its manifestations, since the incumbent system was pleased with restricted constitutional arrangements, notably elections. This has strengthened the rentier state in all its forms, including the political system's fragility and the succession of crises it has faced since independence till today.

The success and widespread deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) have raised awareness of the technology's economic, social, and political consequences. Each new step in the development and application of AI is accompanied by speculations about a supposedly imminent but largely fictional artificial general intelligence (AGI) with (super-)human capacities, as seen in the unfolding discourse about capabilities and impact of large language models (LLMs) in the wake of ChatGPT. These far- reaching expectations lead to a discussion on the societal and political impact of AI that is largely dominated by unfocused fears and enthusiasms. In contrast, this article provides a framework for a more focused and productive analysis and discussion of AI's likely impact on one specific social field: democracy. First, it is necessary to be clear about the workings of AI. This means differentiating between what is at present a largely imaginary AGI and narrow artificial intelligence focused on solving specific tasks. This distinction allows for a critical discussion of how AI affects different aspects of democracy, including its effects on the conditions of self-rule and people's opportunities to exercise it, equality, the institution of elections, and competition between democratic and autocratic systems of government. This article shows that the consequences of today's AI are more specific for democracy than broad speculation about AGI capabilities implies. Focusing on these specific aspects will account for actual threats and opportunities and thus allow for better monitoring of AI's impact on democracy in an interdisciplinary effort by computer and social scientists.

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.

Several scholars studying the so-called authoritarian elections argue that the primary motivation for citizens to vote in the Arab world is the pursuit of individual (mostly material) interests driven by clientelism that may take the form of explicit vote-buying or granting services and privileges to electors. However, research overlooked the potential impact of citizens' evaluation of the regime's democratic level on electoral participation. The goal of this study is to fill this gap. The analysis of the eighth round of the Arab Opinion Index (2022) across nine Arab countries—Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, and Mauritania— reveals that individuals who perceive their country as more democratic are more likely to vote, regardless of objective indicators suggesting the undemocratic nature of the political system.

​This report documents the most significant Palestinian events and developments related to the Arab-Israeli conflict between July 1 and August 31, 2024.

Globally, many countries are implementing decentralization programs as a means of promoting both democratic and developmental objectives. Unfortunately, however, scholarship has yet to offer a comprehensive framework within which to assess and reform central-local relations. This article seeks to overcome the "division of labor" that has long separated analyses of administrative and political structures, and to provide stronger conceptual vocabulary for describing and analyzing the complexities of centralization and decentralization in both administration and politics. After developing two distinct continua of administrative and political centralization/ decentralization, the paper then combines them in a single matrix able to highlight the wide range of strategies and outcomes that emerge from the complex interplay of the two spheres. Depending on where a country lies within the matrix, it is argued, decentralization strategies may do more harm than good. Devolution strategies are especially problematic in settings with strong local leaders, and should never be attempted without careful analysis of the preexisting character of central-local ties.

This study examines the impact of securitization on the democratization of three countries in the in the Horn of Africa: Djibouti, Somalia and Sudan. The three countries, all members of the Arab League, represent diverse but integrated securitization models. The study assumes that securitization in the region has left democratic transformation low in the list of priorities for the major powers, at a time when counterterrorism rhetoric is overwhelming. The paper raises the following questions: Why has securitization discourse overpowered talk of democracy in the Horn of Africa? How do the mechanisms of the securitization discourse interact with political reality? What is the role of regional institutions in enhancing securitization discourse?