Eberhard Kienle is the editor of a contributed volume on "Democracy Building and Democracy Erosion: Political Change North and South of the Mediterranean" (Saqi Books, October 2009):
www.saqibooks.com/saqi/display.asp?K=9780863566295
Publisher's description: "Favouring transitions to democracy on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean was a key objective of the European Union and its member states when they prepared the Barcelona conference in 1995. But European Neighbourhood policies have failed to promote democracy. While the authors remain sensitive to changes that ultimately may translate into greater participation and respect for civil liberty, they also set out to explain why certain short-term goals of the EU are undermining its democratic principles. However, the crucial question – especially after 9/11 – is whether the erosion of democracy in the North has affected the promotion of democracy in the South. Failure of democracy in the South may well be linked to the erosion of democracy on a global scale."
The book includes chapters such as "Comparative De-Democratisation: Backsliding in the West, Sinking in the South" (Robert Springborn), "Absent Transitions from Authoritarianism in the South or Erosion of Democracy on a Global Scale?" (Eberhard Kienle), "Authoritarian Islands in Pluralist Democracies" (Gilles Massardier), and "Challenges to Established Democracies: The Italian Example" (Marc Lazar).
Eberhard Kienle is Research Director at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).
Showing posts with label North Africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Africa. Show all posts
24 September 2010
29 June 2010
CFP: Breakdowns of Democracy Revisited
12th Mediterranean Research Meeting of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute (EUI), Florence and Montecatini Terme, Italy, 6-9 April 2011
Call for papers for Workshop 7: "Breakdowns of Democracy Revisited: Transitions from Liberal-Democratic to Authoritarian Regimes around the Mediterranean Littoral"
www.eui.eu/DepartmentsAndCentres/RobertSchumanCentre/Research/InternationalTransnationalRelations/MediterraneanProgramme/MRM/MRM2011/Index.aspx
From the workshop description: "Studies of democratization have matured greatly over the last two decades [...]. Nevertheless, early expectations that new democracies would survive and flourish have run up against significant cases in which political reform has quickly stalled out or regressed to liberalized authoritarian rule. This development has opened the door to systematic investigations of the circumstances under which initial liberalization programs have failed to gain momentum, most notably in Tunisia and Jordan. Such studies raise the crucial question of whether democratization can be assumed to move in only one direction. History suggests that liberal democracies on occasion collapse and get replaced by highly illiberal regimes. Classic cases of democratic breakdown include Italy in the early 1920s and Germany a decade later.
"Less fully investigated are parallel instances of democratic collapse in Spain, Greece and Turkey. Completely ignored are countries whose brief liberal-democratic eras have been overlooked by political scientists and historians. A number of important examples of the transition away from liberal democracy can be found in the MENA [Middle East and North Africa region]. Among these stand Egypt, Syria, Iraq and perhaps even Libya, not to mention the aborted transition to illiberal governance in Lebanon of the late 1950s. Focused comparisons between well-studied episodes of the breakdown of liberal political orders along the northern shores of the Mediterranean and largely overlooked instances to the south and east are certain to enhance our understanding of the causal factors and processes that lead democracies to be supplanted by authoritarian regimes.
"Scholarship on the topic has lain virtually dormant since the late 1970s. [...] This workshop proposes not only to bring a wide range of additional, long-overlooked cases into the literature on democratic collapse but also to begin the crucial task of formulating well-structured comparisons across different empirical examples. Contributions which focus on countries that have so far been ignored in the academic literature, particularly ones situated in the MENA region, will be expected to make reference to analyses of better-studied examples. Given the peculiarities of the German model, the organizers anticipate that the experience of Italy during the first two decades of the twentieth century is likely to prove particularly thought-provoking, and would therefore welcome proposals from specialists in Italian history and politics. Contributions intended primarily to advance the theory of liberal-democratic breakdown are certainly encouraged, but will be expected to rest on a firm empirical foundation.
"Liberal experiments in the MENA during the 1920s and 1930s are routinely dismissed as too imperfect to be included in discussions of the structure, workings and transformation of democratic governance. The workshop organizers firmly reject such dismissiveness toward the variety of party-based, electoral systems that one finds throughout the Arab world in the decades before the wave of military-led revolutions washed across the region. Instead, they hope that detailed explorations of the liberal-democratic moment in the MENA, unbiased by what E.P. Thompson might call 'the enormous condescension of posterity,' will offer new insight into the dynamics of politics in this part of the world, while at the same time reinvigoring conceptual debates about the dynamics of democratization on the basis of evidence drawn from all shores of the Mediterranean."
Please find detailed instructions on how to submit a paper proposal for this workshop on the conference website (see particularly full call for papers and online form). The procedures and requirements are uncommonly stringent.
Deadline: 15 July 2010
Only for workshop-related questions, contact directly the workshop directors, Fred Lawson (Mills College, California): lawson@mills.edu
and Abdelwahab Shaker (Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt): abdelwahab.shaker@bibalex.org
Call for papers for Workshop 7: "Breakdowns of Democracy Revisited: Transitions from Liberal-Democratic to Authoritarian Regimes around the Mediterranean Littoral"
www.eui.eu/DepartmentsAndCentres/RobertSchumanCentre/Research/InternationalTransnationalRelations/MediterraneanProgramme/MRM/MRM2011/Index.aspx
From the workshop description: "Studies of democratization have matured greatly over the last two decades [...]. Nevertheless, early expectations that new democracies would survive and flourish have run up against significant cases in which political reform has quickly stalled out or regressed to liberalized authoritarian rule. This development has opened the door to systematic investigations of the circumstances under which initial liberalization programs have failed to gain momentum, most notably in Tunisia and Jordan. Such studies raise the crucial question of whether democratization can be assumed to move in only one direction. History suggests that liberal democracies on occasion collapse and get replaced by highly illiberal regimes. Classic cases of democratic breakdown include Italy in the early 1920s and Germany a decade later.
"Less fully investigated are parallel instances of democratic collapse in Spain, Greece and Turkey. Completely ignored are countries whose brief liberal-democratic eras have been overlooked by political scientists and historians. A number of important examples of the transition away from liberal democracy can be found in the MENA [Middle East and North Africa region]. Among these stand Egypt, Syria, Iraq and perhaps even Libya, not to mention the aborted transition to illiberal governance in Lebanon of the late 1950s. Focused comparisons between well-studied episodes of the breakdown of liberal political orders along the northern shores of the Mediterranean and largely overlooked instances to the south and east are certain to enhance our understanding of the causal factors and processes that lead democracies to be supplanted by authoritarian regimes.
"Scholarship on the topic has lain virtually dormant since the late 1970s. [...] This workshop proposes not only to bring a wide range of additional, long-overlooked cases into the literature on democratic collapse but also to begin the crucial task of formulating well-structured comparisons across different empirical examples. Contributions which focus on countries that have so far been ignored in the academic literature, particularly ones situated in the MENA region, will be expected to make reference to analyses of better-studied examples. Given the peculiarities of the German model, the organizers anticipate that the experience of Italy during the first two decades of the twentieth century is likely to prove particularly thought-provoking, and would therefore welcome proposals from specialists in Italian history and politics. Contributions intended primarily to advance the theory of liberal-democratic breakdown are certainly encouraged, but will be expected to rest on a firm empirical foundation.
"Liberal experiments in the MENA during the 1920s and 1930s are routinely dismissed as too imperfect to be included in discussions of the structure, workings and transformation of democratic governance. The workshop organizers firmly reject such dismissiveness toward the variety of party-based, electoral systems that one finds throughout the Arab world in the decades before the wave of military-led revolutions washed across the region. Instead, they hope that detailed explorations of the liberal-democratic moment in the MENA, unbiased by what E.P. Thompson might call 'the enormous condescension of posterity,' will offer new insight into the dynamics of politics in this part of the world, while at the same time reinvigoring conceptual debates about the dynamics of democratization on the basis of evidence drawn from all shores of the Mediterranean."
Please find detailed instructions on how to submit a paper proposal for this workshop on the conference website (see particularly full call for papers and online form). The procedures and requirements are uncommonly stringent.
Deadline: 15 July 2010
Only for workshop-related questions, contact directly the workshop directors, Fred Lawson (Mills College, California): lawson@mills.edu
and Abdelwahab Shaker (Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Egypt): abdelwahab.shaker@bibalex.org
27 February 2010
Books on how civic associations promote anti-democracy
Amaney A. Jamal, "Barriers to Democracy: The Other Side of Social Capital in Palestine and the Arab World" (Princeton University Press, 2007):
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8420.html
Publisher's description: "Democracy-building efforts from the early 1990s on have funneled billions of dollars into nongovernmental organizations across the developing world, with the U.S. administration of George W. Bush leading the charge since 2001. But are many such 'civil society' initiatives fatally flawed? Focusing on the Palestinian West Bank and the Arab world, Barriers to Democracy mounts a powerful challenge to the core tenet of civil society initiatives: namely, that public participation in private associations necessarily yields the sort of civic engagement that, in turn, sustains effective democratic institutions. Such assertions tend to rely on evidence from states that are democratic to begin with. Here, Amaney Jamal investigates the role of civic associations in promoting democratic attitudes and behavioral patterns in contexts that are less than democratic. Jamal argues that, in state-centralized environments, associations can just as easily promote civic qualities vital to authoritarian citizenship – such as support for the regime in power. Thus, any assessment of the influence of associational life on civic life must take into account political contexts, including the relationships among associations, their leaders, and political institutions."
The book won the 2008 Best Book Award of the Comparative Democratization Section of the American Political Science Association (APSA).
From the award committee's remarks: "Amaney Jamal [...] teaches us that civic organizations have very different effects in non-democratic states. Far from being schools for democrats as some of our literature would suggest, civic organizations produce actors who mirror the attitudes and behaviors of their political patrons. In keeping with the larger literature on social capital, she finds that members of associations do display higher levels of trust than non-members. But, breaking with the older literature, she shows that their attitudes toward democracy are ambivalent at best. The association between trust and democratic values posited in work from established democracies does not hold.
"Jamal's Barriers to Democracy is a fascinating test of the theory of social capital built with evidence from survey data, open-ended interviews with elites, observation of over one-hundred individual organizations, and comparative reference to Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan. The committee was impressed with the force and import of Jamal's arguments and the truly impressive empirical data and research she brought to bear on her analysis. The study represents comparative politics at its best."
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yk-PS2HtJJQC&printsec=frontcover
Amaney A. Jamal is Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton.
A number of earlier books seem to come to similar findings, among them, edited by Sigrid Rossteutscher, "Democracy and the Role of Associations: Political, Organizational and Social Contexts" (Routledge, 2005):
www.routledge.com/books/Democracy-and-the-Role-of-Associations-isbn9780415499156
Publisher's description: "Voluntary associations have been presented as a solution to political apathy and cynicism towards representative democracy. The authors collected in this volume, however, argue that these claims require more robust substantiation and seek to critically examine the crucial link between the associative sector and the health of democracy. Focusing on the role of context and using diverse approaches and empirical material, they explore whether these associations in differing socio-political contexts actually undermine rather than reinvigorate democracy."
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=IUaYlUpj2PsC&printsec=frontcover
Sigrid Rossteutscher is now Professor of Sociology at Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany.
A book at least Jamal is aware of and refers to is "Civil Society Before Democracy: Lessons from Nineteenth-Century Europe", edited by Nancy Bermeo and Philip Nord (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000):
www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0847695506
From the publisher's description: "Bringing together historians and political scientists, this unique collaboration compares nineteenth-century civil societies that failed to develop lasting democracies with civil societies that succeeded. Much of the current literature on the connection between civil society and consolidating democracy focuses exclusively on single, contemporary polities that are ever-changing and uncertain. By studying historical cases, the authors are able to demonstrate which civil societies developed in tandem with lasting democracies and which did not. Contrasting these two sets of cases, the book both enlightens readers about individual countries and extracts lessons about the connections between civil society and democracy in contemporary times."
Review: "This book bringing together the writings of historians and political commentators from Europe and the United States [...] shows us that civil society is not necessarily synonymous with democracy ..." ("European Library")
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=32UTDxBjYHoC&printsec=frontcover
Nancy Bermeo is now Nuffield Professor of Comparative Politics at Oxford.
Philip Nord is Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Princeton.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8420.html
Publisher's description: "Democracy-building efforts from the early 1990s on have funneled billions of dollars into nongovernmental organizations across the developing world, with the U.S. administration of George W. Bush leading the charge since 2001. But are many such 'civil society' initiatives fatally flawed? Focusing on the Palestinian West Bank and the Arab world, Barriers to Democracy mounts a powerful challenge to the core tenet of civil society initiatives: namely, that public participation in private associations necessarily yields the sort of civic engagement that, in turn, sustains effective democratic institutions. Such assertions tend to rely on evidence from states that are democratic to begin with. Here, Amaney Jamal investigates the role of civic associations in promoting democratic attitudes and behavioral patterns in contexts that are less than democratic. Jamal argues that, in state-centralized environments, associations can just as easily promote civic qualities vital to authoritarian citizenship – such as support for the regime in power. Thus, any assessment of the influence of associational life on civic life must take into account political contexts, including the relationships among associations, their leaders, and political institutions."
The book won the 2008 Best Book Award of the Comparative Democratization Section of the American Political Science Association (APSA).
From the award committee's remarks: "Amaney Jamal [...] teaches us that civic organizations have very different effects in non-democratic states. Far from being schools for democrats as some of our literature would suggest, civic organizations produce actors who mirror the attitudes and behaviors of their political patrons. In keeping with the larger literature on social capital, she finds that members of associations do display higher levels of trust than non-members. But, breaking with the older literature, she shows that their attitudes toward democracy are ambivalent at best. The association between trust and democratic values posited in work from established democracies does not hold.
"Jamal's Barriers to Democracy is a fascinating test of the theory of social capital built with evidence from survey data, open-ended interviews with elites, observation of over one-hundred individual organizations, and comparative reference to Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan. The committee was impressed with the force and import of Jamal's arguments and the truly impressive empirical data and research she brought to bear on her analysis. The study represents comparative politics at its best."
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yk-PS2HtJJQC&printsec=frontcover
Amaney A. Jamal is Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton.
A number of earlier books seem to come to similar findings, among them, edited by Sigrid Rossteutscher, "Democracy and the Role of Associations: Political, Organizational and Social Contexts" (Routledge, 2005):
www.routledge.com/books/Democracy-and-the-Role-of-Associations-isbn9780415499156
Publisher's description: "Voluntary associations have been presented as a solution to political apathy and cynicism towards representative democracy. The authors collected in this volume, however, argue that these claims require more robust substantiation and seek to critically examine the crucial link between the associative sector and the health of democracy. Focusing on the role of context and using diverse approaches and empirical material, they explore whether these associations in differing socio-political contexts actually undermine rather than reinvigorate democracy."
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=IUaYlUpj2PsC&printsec=frontcover
Sigrid Rossteutscher is now Professor of Sociology at Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany.
A book at least Jamal is aware of and refers to is "Civil Society Before Democracy: Lessons from Nineteenth-Century Europe", edited by Nancy Bermeo and Philip Nord (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000):
www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0847695506
From the publisher's description: "Bringing together historians and political scientists, this unique collaboration compares nineteenth-century civil societies that failed to develop lasting democracies with civil societies that succeeded. Much of the current literature on the connection between civil society and consolidating democracy focuses exclusively on single, contemporary polities that are ever-changing and uncertain. By studying historical cases, the authors are able to demonstrate which civil societies developed in tandem with lasting democracies and which did not. Contrasting these two sets of cases, the book both enlightens readers about individual countries and extracts lessons about the connections between civil society and democracy in contemporary times."
Review: "This book bringing together the writings of historians and political commentators from Europe and the United States [...] shows us that civil society is not necessarily synonymous with democracy ..." ("European Library")
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=32UTDxBjYHoC&printsec=frontcover
Nancy Bermeo is now Nuffield Professor of Comparative Politics at Oxford.
Philip Nord is Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Princeton.
25 February 2010
Book: The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms
Elie Elhadj, "The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms" (Brown Walker Press, 2006; revised edition 2007):
www.brownwalker.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599424118
From the publisher's description: "Washington's 'War on Terrorism' has used democratization of the Arab World as a justification and a weapon. The Islamic Shield contends that genuine religious and political reforms in the Arab World are sheer fantasy: they are not expected for a very long time, if ever. The Islamic Shield argues that democratic ideology cannot defeat Islamic theology. A culture of blind obedience to autocratic authority at home, school, mosque, and work place has been turned into a form of piety by the ulama clerics. [...]
"The Islamic Shield examines why democratic institutions are a mirage in two profoundly different countries, Saudi Arabia, an Islamist monarchy, and Syria, a quasi-secular republic. Although the two countries differ in types of governance, ideologies, agendas, and resources, they share in common non-representative, non-participatory dictatorial regimes. The two countries approximate socio-political models found in other Arab monarchies and republics. The Islamic Shield examines such questions as: [...] Why do non-Arab Islamic countries elect women as prime ministers and presidents while Arab ulama and most Arab rulers treat women as lesser beings and condemn democracy as un-Islamic? Is benevolent dictatorship a viable alternative to Arab democracy?"
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=S2kZfdrEBlAC&printsec=frontcover
Syrian-born Elie Elhadj, a retired international banker, holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London.
www.brownwalker.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599424118
From the publisher's description: "Washington's 'War on Terrorism' has used democratization of the Arab World as a justification and a weapon. The Islamic Shield contends that genuine religious and political reforms in the Arab World are sheer fantasy: they are not expected for a very long time, if ever. The Islamic Shield argues that democratic ideology cannot defeat Islamic theology. A culture of blind obedience to autocratic authority at home, school, mosque, and work place has been turned into a form of piety by the ulama clerics. [...]
"The Islamic Shield examines why democratic institutions are a mirage in two profoundly different countries, Saudi Arabia, an Islamist monarchy, and Syria, a quasi-secular republic. Although the two countries differ in types of governance, ideologies, agendas, and resources, they share in common non-representative, non-participatory dictatorial regimes. The two countries approximate socio-political models found in other Arab monarchies and republics. The Islamic Shield examines such questions as: [...] Why do non-Arab Islamic countries elect women as prime ministers and presidents while Arab ulama and most Arab rulers treat women as lesser beings and condemn democracy as un-Islamic? Is benevolent dictatorship a viable alternative to Arab democracy?"
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=S2kZfdrEBlAC&printsec=frontcover
Syrian-born Elie Elhadj, a retired international banker, holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London.
23 February 2010
Book: Debating Arab Authoritarianism: Dynamics and Durability in Nondemocratic Regimes
The contributed volume "Debating Arab Authoritarianism: Dynamics and Durability in Nondemocratic Regimes" was edited by Oliver Schlumberger (Stanford University Press, 2007):
www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=10419
Publisher's description: "This volume inquires into the working mechanisms, the inner logic, and the durability of authoritarian rule in Arab countries. Written by leading American, European, and Arab experts, the collected essays explore the ongoing political dynamics of the region and show how Arab regimes retain power despite ongoing transformations on regional, national, and international levels and in societal, political, and economic spheres. The findings of this book strongly suggest that democratization remains off the agenda in any Arab country for the foreseeable future. Domestic political protests, international pressure toward more liberal governance, and 'reform-oriented' regimes notwithstanding, Debating Arab Authoritarianism indicates that while the impetus for political change is strong, it is in the direction of an adaptation to changed circumstances and may even be a revitalization or consolidation of authoritarian rule rather than a systemic transition to democracy."
Reviews: "In contrast to the democratic deficit literature that purports to explain the absence of democracy in the Middle East, this superb collection of essays provides a theoretically sophisticated account of the origins and nature of authoritarian persistence and durability. The contributors bring a variety of theoretical and empirical perspectives, and their endeavours are animated by a common research agenda that gives analytical coherence to this illuminating volume." (Daniel Brumberg, Georgetown University)
"The analysis of Arab authoritarianism offered in this volume is truly excellent, with all contributors shedding light on the workings of Arab regimes and treating them as 'stable' political systems rather than transitional ones. The book is a must-read for all those interested in political authoritarianism, the Middle East, and international relations." ("Politics and Religion")
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=TDAI46OJ2q4C&printsec=frontcover
Oliver Schlumberger is now Professor of Middle Eastern Politics at the University of Tübingen, Germany.
www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=10419
Publisher's description: "This volume inquires into the working mechanisms, the inner logic, and the durability of authoritarian rule in Arab countries. Written by leading American, European, and Arab experts, the collected essays explore the ongoing political dynamics of the region and show how Arab regimes retain power despite ongoing transformations on regional, national, and international levels and in societal, political, and economic spheres. The findings of this book strongly suggest that democratization remains off the agenda in any Arab country for the foreseeable future. Domestic political protests, international pressure toward more liberal governance, and 'reform-oriented' regimes notwithstanding, Debating Arab Authoritarianism indicates that while the impetus for political change is strong, it is in the direction of an adaptation to changed circumstances and may even be a revitalization or consolidation of authoritarian rule rather than a systemic transition to democracy."
Reviews: "In contrast to the democratic deficit literature that purports to explain the absence of democracy in the Middle East, this superb collection of essays provides a theoretically sophisticated account of the origins and nature of authoritarian persistence and durability. The contributors bring a variety of theoretical and empirical perspectives, and their endeavours are animated by a common research agenda that gives analytical coherence to this illuminating volume." (Daniel Brumberg, Georgetown University)
"The analysis of Arab authoritarianism offered in this volume is truly excellent, with all contributors shedding light on the workings of Arab regimes and treating them as 'stable' political systems rather than transitional ones. The book is a must-read for all those interested in political authoritarianism, the Middle East, and international relations." ("Politics and Religion")
The book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=TDAI46OJ2q4C&printsec=frontcover
Oliver Schlumberger is now Professor of Middle Eastern Politics at the University of Tübingen, Germany.
29 January 2010
Article: Islamism and Totalitarianism
Jeffrey M. Bale, "Islamism and Totalitarianism" ("Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions", 10 [2], June 2009: pp. 73-96):
www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a917908501
Abstract: "Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and even more so since the spectacular attacks by Qa'idat al-Jihad against the U.S. on 9/11, there has been an ever-growing flood of academic and journalistic publications devoted to radical Islam. Unfortunately, much of that literature has embodied problematic conceptual perspectives that can best be characterized as 'Islam bashing', 'Islam apologism', or – worst of all – 'Islamist apologism'. The purpose of this article is to identify the key problems with all of those perspectives, and especially to challenge the widespread view that Islamism can assume genuinely 'moderate', 'democratic', or 'liberationist' forms. On the contrary, the argument herein is that Islamism is an intrinsically radical and anti-democratic extreme right-wing political ideology, one that is not only based upon an unusually strict, puritanical interpretation of central tenets of the Islamic faith but is totalitarian in its very essence. Hence Islamist movements should not be seen as being comparable to Western movements like Christian Democracy, but rather as being similar in certain respects to Western totalitarian movements like Marxism-Leninism and fascism."
Excerpts: "A second form of 'Islamist apologism' promotes the idea that Islamism is essentially a new type of 'democratic movement from below', a kind of justifiable reaction against the corrupt, authoritarian regimes that unfortunately hold sway throughout most of the Muslim world. [...] That would be equivalent to arguing that Marxism-Leninism and fascism, two other intrinsically anti-democratic and totalitarian ideologies, somehow managed to inspire the formation of genuine 'democratic movements from below' simply because they levelled serious critiques of and arose in opposition to authoritarian and/or corrupt regimes in their respective countries.
"The sad truth is that Islamist opposition to the authoritarian regimes in places like Egypt and Algeria, whether violent or non-violent, has never arisen primarily because the Islamists are troubled morally or philosophically by the fact that those regimes are 'authoritarian' and 'undemocratic' – so too are the Islamists, even the allegedly 'moderate' ones – but rather because they consider those states to be 'apostate' or 'un-Islamic', as well as because the very same regimes have not hesitated to carry out harsh repressive measures against Islamist groups. [...]
"A third and related form of 'Islamist apologism' is that Islamism [...] can even be seen as an Islamic form of 'liberation theology'. [...] If the historical record is indicative, no Islamist movement has ever 'liberated' anyone other than like-minded religious fanatics – unless one equates 'liberation' with the suppression of religious diversity, moral 'deviance' and political dissent, the restriction of minority and women's rights, the de jure or de facto repudiation of genuine democratic values, and the more or less systematic attempt to control both the external behaviour and the very consciousness of believers – and no Islamist regime is ever likely to, either, at least not without jettisoning its core Islamist doctrines.
"To claim that such movements are 'progressive' in any way, simply because they oppose Western hegemony, defies all logic. After all, the Italian Fascists and Nazis were also bitterly opposed to Anglo-American, French and Soviet 'imperialism', yet no well-informed academician would ever claim that they were a force for 'liberation'. Yet that is how some are nowadays portraying the Islamists. [...]
"Islamism [...] has both revolutionary and revivalist features. It can be described as revolutionary because, in order for the Islamists to achieve their stated objectives, the existing international world order would have to be fundamentally transformed if not overturned, either wholly or in part. It can be characterised as revivalist because the Islamist goal is to restore the pure, pristine Islamic community [...] that is now governed by 'satanic' man-made laws and institutions (including democracy) [...] devised by Western 'unbelievers' [substituting] the sovereignty of man in place of that of Allah [...].
"This intrinsic theological and philosophical opposition to democracy does not mean, of course, that various Islamist groups have not disingenuously proclaimed their acceptance of democratic rules and cynically exploited democratic processes and procedures, such as participating in elections and forming temporary coalitions with other parties, simply in order to facilitate their accession to power, just as other monists and totalitarians like the communists and fascists had periodically done in past eras. [...] Despite the occasional efforts of non-violent Islamists to pay lip service to pluralism and democratic processes, almost always for purely tactical reasons, the substance of Islamist doctrines is intrinsically anti-pluralist and antidemocratic."
Jeffrey M. Bale is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a917908501
Abstract: "Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and even more so since the spectacular attacks by Qa'idat al-Jihad against the U.S. on 9/11, there has been an ever-growing flood of academic and journalistic publications devoted to radical Islam. Unfortunately, much of that literature has embodied problematic conceptual perspectives that can best be characterized as 'Islam bashing', 'Islam apologism', or – worst of all – 'Islamist apologism'. The purpose of this article is to identify the key problems with all of those perspectives, and especially to challenge the widespread view that Islamism can assume genuinely 'moderate', 'democratic', or 'liberationist' forms. On the contrary, the argument herein is that Islamism is an intrinsically radical and anti-democratic extreme right-wing political ideology, one that is not only based upon an unusually strict, puritanical interpretation of central tenets of the Islamic faith but is totalitarian in its very essence. Hence Islamist movements should not be seen as being comparable to Western movements like Christian Democracy, but rather as being similar in certain respects to Western totalitarian movements like Marxism-Leninism and fascism."
Excerpts: "A second form of 'Islamist apologism' promotes the idea that Islamism is essentially a new type of 'democratic movement from below', a kind of justifiable reaction against the corrupt, authoritarian regimes that unfortunately hold sway throughout most of the Muslim world. [...] That would be equivalent to arguing that Marxism-Leninism and fascism, two other intrinsically anti-democratic and totalitarian ideologies, somehow managed to inspire the formation of genuine 'democratic movements from below' simply because they levelled serious critiques of and arose in opposition to authoritarian and/or corrupt regimes in their respective countries.
"The sad truth is that Islamist opposition to the authoritarian regimes in places like Egypt and Algeria, whether violent or non-violent, has never arisen primarily because the Islamists are troubled morally or philosophically by the fact that those regimes are 'authoritarian' and 'undemocratic' – so too are the Islamists, even the allegedly 'moderate' ones – but rather because they consider those states to be 'apostate' or 'un-Islamic', as well as because the very same regimes have not hesitated to carry out harsh repressive measures against Islamist groups. [...]
"A third and related form of 'Islamist apologism' is that Islamism [...] can even be seen as an Islamic form of 'liberation theology'. [...] If the historical record is indicative, no Islamist movement has ever 'liberated' anyone other than like-minded religious fanatics – unless one equates 'liberation' with the suppression of religious diversity, moral 'deviance' and political dissent, the restriction of minority and women's rights, the de jure or de facto repudiation of genuine democratic values, and the more or less systematic attempt to control both the external behaviour and the very consciousness of believers – and no Islamist regime is ever likely to, either, at least not without jettisoning its core Islamist doctrines.
"To claim that such movements are 'progressive' in any way, simply because they oppose Western hegemony, defies all logic. After all, the Italian Fascists and Nazis were also bitterly opposed to Anglo-American, French and Soviet 'imperialism', yet no well-informed academician would ever claim that they were a force for 'liberation'. Yet that is how some are nowadays portraying the Islamists. [...]
"Islamism [...] has both revolutionary and revivalist features. It can be described as revolutionary because, in order for the Islamists to achieve their stated objectives, the existing international world order would have to be fundamentally transformed if not overturned, either wholly or in part. It can be characterised as revivalist because the Islamist goal is to restore the pure, pristine Islamic community [...] that is now governed by 'satanic' man-made laws and institutions (including democracy) [...] devised by Western 'unbelievers' [substituting] the sovereignty of man in place of that of Allah [...].
"This intrinsic theological and philosophical opposition to democracy does not mean, of course, that various Islamist groups have not disingenuously proclaimed their acceptance of democratic rules and cynically exploited democratic processes and procedures, such as participating in elections and forming temporary coalitions with other parties, simply in order to facilitate their accession to power, just as other monists and totalitarians like the communists and fascists had periodically done in past eras. [...] Despite the occasional efforts of non-violent Islamists to pay lip service to pluralism and democratic processes, almost always for purely tactical reasons, the substance of Islamist doctrines is intrinsically anti-pluralist and antidemocratic."
Jeffrey M. Bale is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
18 January 2010
Books: New Challenges to Democratization
The Madrid-based "European think tank for global action" Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE) has been studying the suggested recent "backlash" against democracy. Based on this research, two publications have appeared last year.
First, "New Challenges to Democratization", eds. Peter Burnell and Richard Youngs (Routledge, November 2009):
www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t916380625
From the publisher's description: "This important text explores the widespread contention that new challenges and obstacles have arisen to democratization, assessing the claim that support for democratization around the world is facing a serious challenge.
"Bringing together leading international scholars of democratization [...], this book examines the issues relating to developments within non-democratic states and issues related to the democratic world and its efforts to support the spread of democracy. Featuring in-depth studies on the limits of US democracy promotion, the Middle East, Russia, China and new democracies, the book sheds light on such questions as: Is the wave of democratization now in retreat or should we be careful not to exaggerate the importance of recent setbacks? Do serious, sustainable alternatives to democracy now exist? Is international democracy promotion finished?"
Contents: 1. New Challenges to Democratization (Peter Burnell, Warwick); 2. State Sovereignty and Democracy: An Awkward Coupling (Laurence Whitehead, Oxford); 3. Ideological Challenges to Democracy: Do they Exist? (Marina Ottaway, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); 4. The Continuing Backlash against Democracy Promotion (Thomas Carothers, Carnegie Endowment/Johns Hopkins); 5. Democracy Assistance and the Search for Security (Nancy Bermeo, Oxford/Princeton); 6. Public Support versus Dissatisfaction in New Democracies: An Inside Challenge? (Renske Doorenspleet, Warwick); 7. External Sources and Consequences of Russia's 'Sovereign Democracy' (Michael McFaul, Stanford/Hoover Institution, and Regine A. Spector, University of Massachusetts, Amherst); 8. Democratizing One-Party Rule in China (Shaun Breslin, Warwick); 9. Democratization by Whom? Resistance to Democracy Promotion in the Middle East (Bassma Kodmani, Arab Reform Initiative); 10. Energy: A Reinforced Obstacle to Democratization? (Richard Youngs, FRIDE);
11. Addressing Democracy's Challenges (Peter Burnell and Richard Youngs)
The full version of a second publication, "Democracy's Plight in the European Neighbourhood: Struggling Transitions and Proliferating Dynasties", eds. Michael Emerson and Richard Youngs (Centre for European Policy Studies [CEPS], Brussels, and FRIDE, October 2009), can be downloaded free of charge at this link:
www.fride.org/publication/666/democracys-plight-in-the-european-neighbourhood
Description: "In recent years many analysts have focused their attention on an apparent 'backlash' against democracy and democracy promotion. FRIDE and CEPS have previously cooperated on exploring the general nature of this 'backlash'. In this volume we turn to a more specific European neighbourhood focus, and explore the general issues relating to democracy's travails in more detail in the countries to the south and east of the European Union. The underlying question is whether, in an era of democratic pessimism, the European neighbourhood can offer any more optimistic conclusions.
"In this context we asked a group of experts [...] to write short essays covering fifteen different case studies from across the neighbourhood region. They assess a common range of questions: Is democratisation now in retreat, or just stagnating? Do we risk exaggerating the importance of recent setbacks? What is happening to the normative appeal of democracy? How does the financial crisis impact on political trends? How have external democracy promotion efforts evolved and been received? Is international democracy promotion running out of steam? What has been the impact of the slowing of the EU's enlargement process, alongside the limited scope of its neighbourhood policy?
"The book addresses these specific questions in three groups of states. First, those countries in or close to the European Union: Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and Turkey. Second, states of the former Soviet Union: Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Third, three Arab states of the southern Mediterranean: Morocco, Algeria and Egypt."
Excerpt: "There is virtually no well-functioning democracy in the neighbourhood of the European Union, which now finds itself surrounded by states that fall broadly into either one of two categories. In one category there are the states that have seen the post-communist political transition processes go astray and take on various guises of distorted, perverted, or dysfunctional democracy. This group includes the newest member states of the EU. On the other hand there is a set of authoritarian regimes in which the concentration of power has become increasingly consolidated".
Peter Burnell is Professor of Politics at the University of Warwick.
Michael Emerson is an Associate Senior Research Fellow and Program Director for Wider Europe with CEPS.
Richard Youngs is Director General of FRIDE. He also lectures at the University of Warwick.
First, "New Challenges to Democratization", eds. Peter Burnell and Richard Youngs (Routledge, November 2009):
www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t916380625
From the publisher's description: "This important text explores the widespread contention that new challenges and obstacles have arisen to democratization, assessing the claim that support for democratization around the world is facing a serious challenge.
"Bringing together leading international scholars of democratization [...], this book examines the issues relating to developments within non-democratic states and issues related to the democratic world and its efforts to support the spread of democracy. Featuring in-depth studies on the limits of US democracy promotion, the Middle East, Russia, China and new democracies, the book sheds light on such questions as: Is the wave of democratization now in retreat or should we be careful not to exaggerate the importance of recent setbacks? Do serious, sustainable alternatives to democracy now exist? Is international democracy promotion finished?"
Contents: 1. New Challenges to Democratization (Peter Burnell, Warwick); 2. State Sovereignty and Democracy: An Awkward Coupling (Laurence Whitehead, Oxford); 3. Ideological Challenges to Democracy: Do they Exist? (Marina Ottaway, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); 4. The Continuing Backlash against Democracy Promotion (Thomas Carothers, Carnegie Endowment/Johns Hopkins); 5. Democracy Assistance and the Search for Security (Nancy Bermeo, Oxford/Princeton); 6. Public Support versus Dissatisfaction in New Democracies: An Inside Challenge? (Renske Doorenspleet, Warwick); 7. External Sources and Consequences of Russia's 'Sovereign Democracy' (Michael McFaul, Stanford/Hoover Institution, and Regine A. Spector, University of Massachusetts, Amherst); 8. Democratizing One-Party Rule in China (Shaun Breslin, Warwick); 9. Democratization by Whom? Resistance to Democracy Promotion in the Middle East (Bassma Kodmani, Arab Reform Initiative); 10. Energy: A Reinforced Obstacle to Democratization? (Richard Youngs, FRIDE);
11. Addressing Democracy's Challenges (Peter Burnell and Richard Youngs)
The full version of a second publication, "Democracy's Plight in the European Neighbourhood: Struggling Transitions and Proliferating Dynasties", eds. Michael Emerson and Richard Youngs (Centre for European Policy Studies [CEPS], Brussels, and FRIDE, October 2009), can be downloaded free of charge at this link:
www.fride.org/publication/666/democracys-plight-in-the-european-neighbourhood
Description: "In recent years many analysts have focused their attention on an apparent 'backlash' against democracy and democracy promotion. FRIDE and CEPS have previously cooperated on exploring the general nature of this 'backlash'. In this volume we turn to a more specific European neighbourhood focus, and explore the general issues relating to democracy's travails in more detail in the countries to the south and east of the European Union. The underlying question is whether, in an era of democratic pessimism, the European neighbourhood can offer any more optimistic conclusions.
"In this context we asked a group of experts [...] to write short essays covering fifteen different case studies from across the neighbourhood region. They assess a common range of questions: Is democratisation now in retreat, or just stagnating? Do we risk exaggerating the importance of recent setbacks? What is happening to the normative appeal of democracy? How does the financial crisis impact on political trends? How have external democracy promotion efforts evolved and been received? Is international democracy promotion running out of steam? What has been the impact of the slowing of the EU's enlargement process, alongside the limited scope of its neighbourhood policy?
"The book addresses these specific questions in three groups of states. First, those countries in or close to the European Union: Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and Turkey. Second, states of the former Soviet Union: Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Third, three Arab states of the southern Mediterranean: Morocco, Algeria and Egypt."
Excerpt: "There is virtually no well-functioning democracy in the neighbourhood of the European Union, which now finds itself surrounded by states that fall broadly into either one of two categories. In one category there are the states that have seen the post-communist political transition processes go astray and take on various guises of distorted, perverted, or dysfunctional democracy. This group includes the newest member states of the EU. On the other hand there is a set of authoritarian regimes in which the concentration of power has become increasingly consolidated".
Peter Burnell is Professor of Politics at the University of Warwick.
Michael Emerson is an Associate Senior Research Fellow and Program Director for Wider Europe with CEPS.
Richard Youngs is Director General of FRIDE. He also lectures at the University of Warwick.
09 January 2010
Books: The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa
Two books by Stephen J. King might shed light on some aspects of what is called, particularly in Political Science and Development Studies, "new authoritarianism".
In October 2009, Indiana University Press published his "The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa":
www.iupress.indiana.edu/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=137404
From the publisher's description: "Stephen J. King considers the reasons that international and domestic efforts toward democratization have failed to take hold in the Arab world. Focusing on Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and Algeria, he suggests that a complex set of variables characterizes authoritarian rule and helps to explain both its dynamism and its persistence. King addresses, but moves beyond, how religion and the strongly patriarchal culture influence state structure, policy configuration, ruling coalitions, and legitimization and privatization strategies. He shows how the transformation of authoritarianism has taken place amid shifting social relations and political institutions and how these changes have affected the lives of millions."
This book follows on from a 2003 publication, "Liberalization Against Democracy: The Local Politics of Economic Reform in Tunisia" (also Indiana University Press):
www.iupress.indiana.edu/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=21878
"In Liberalization [A]gainst Democracy, Stephen J. King argues that, in contrast to prevailing views, pro-market economic reforms in Tunisia did not foster democratization. Instead, state-led economic liberalization facilitated the reorganization of authoritarian rule and contributed to the subversion of democratic tendencies at both the national and local levels. In addition to King's analysis of neo-liberal economic transformation and regime change at the national level, his book offers a rare local-level analysis of these processes, based on the author's extensive fieldwork in the rural community of Tebourba. King's focus on the local level of analysis is particularly valuable. His community study shows firsthand how local elites have manipulated cultural traditionalism in order to sustain market-oriented reforms. This rich account clearly delineates the pathways by which pro-market reforms in Tunisia have fostered corporatism, clientelism, and authoritarianism."
The latter book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=BN2lEjHwmggC&printsec=frontcover
Stephen J. King is Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University.
In October 2009, Indiana University Press published his "The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa":
www.iupress.indiana.edu/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=137404
From the publisher's description: "Stephen J. King considers the reasons that international and domestic efforts toward democratization have failed to take hold in the Arab world. Focusing on Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and Algeria, he suggests that a complex set of variables characterizes authoritarian rule and helps to explain both its dynamism and its persistence. King addresses, but moves beyond, how religion and the strongly patriarchal culture influence state structure, policy configuration, ruling coalitions, and legitimization and privatization strategies. He shows how the transformation of authoritarianism has taken place amid shifting social relations and political institutions and how these changes have affected the lives of millions."
This book follows on from a 2003 publication, "Liberalization Against Democracy: The Local Politics of Economic Reform in Tunisia" (also Indiana University Press):
www.iupress.indiana.edu/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=21878
"In Liberalization [A]gainst Democracy, Stephen J. King argues that, in contrast to prevailing views, pro-market economic reforms in Tunisia did not foster democratization. Instead, state-led economic liberalization facilitated the reorganization of authoritarian rule and contributed to the subversion of democratic tendencies at both the national and local levels. In addition to King's analysis of neo-liberal economic transformation and regime change at the national level, his book offers a rare local-level analysis of these processes, based on the author's extensive fieldwork in the rural community of Tebourba. King's focus on the local level of analysis is particularly valuable. His community study shows firsthand how local elites have manipulated cultural traditionalism in order to sustain market-oriented reforms. This rich account clearly delineates the pathways by which pro-market reforms in Tunisia have fostered corporatism, clientelism, and authoritarianism."
The latter book is fully searchable on Google Book Search (including table of contents):
http://books.google.com/books?id=BN2lEjHwmggC&printsec=frontcover
Stephen J. King is Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
