Why did human rights claims have such a limited impact on the authoritarian status quo in the Middle East prior to the Arab Spring-and why are they so often thwarted now? What factors have shaped human rights debates and outcomes in the region? Addressing these questions, Bosmat Yefet offers a comparative analysis, both empirically grounded and theoretically sophisticated, of the forces variously supporting and resisting the full embrace of human rights in Egypt and Jordan since the 1990s.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This article offers a new perspective on the extensive discussion of the role of new media in facilitating the 2011 Egyptian uprising by placing it within the historical context of how the state responded to new media in the previous decades. This article uses an archaeological analysis of state media to reveal how the state coped with the news media (newspapers, radio, television, satellite television) in the past to infer the present relationship between the state and the new media (the internet and social media). We discerned a recurring cyclical pattern characterized by a dynamic of openness–adaptation–narrowing, which sheds light on the media's ability to challenge state authority and on the state's ability to contain and limit new media. We suggest that the role of the internet and social media in the Egyptian "Arab Spring" should be viewed as being on this continuum, as an extension of processes of state–media relations that had developed in the preceding decades.
AbstractDrawing from scholarship on authoritarian adaptation and on insight from legitimacy theory, we seek to examine to what degree the renewal of authoritarianism under 'Abd al‐Fattah al‐Sisi in post‐revolutionary Egypt can be understood as the establishment of a new political order with its own patterns of legitimation. The main focus of the discussion is al‐Sisi's adaptation of legitimization strategies designed to justify his rule and ensure stability under severe repression and economic reforms. We discuss al‐Sisi claims of personal legitimacy as a substitute for institutional legitimacy, his missionary role as a substitute for ideology, and his reshaped eudaemonic legitimacy. All these strategies of legitimation are formulated while rejecting the 2011 revolutionary legitimation and its promises for democracy. Such analysis, which goes beyond coercion or institutional explanations for authoritarian adaptation, scrutinizes the conceptual reconstruction of authoritarianism as a tool to ensure the consent of the citizens and their legitimacy to the renewal of authoritarianism.
