Liberal Democracy Attained or Constrained: A
Study on the Barriers to Liberal Democracy in
Post-Arab Spring Egypt
MS Thesis in Political Science: European Politics and External Relations
Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam
Author: Yasmina Mohy
Student number: 12286109
Main Supervisor: Dr. S. Rezaeiejan
Second Supervisor: Dr. D. Bouris
ABSTRACT The Arab Spring resulted in massive dynamic changes in the European Union’s Southern neighborhood. Virtually all Arab countries located in the Middle East and North Africa are still dealing with the aftermath of the Arab Spring. After the eruptions, the liberal democratization process was on top of the European Union’s agenda. Egypt is one of the countries that is considered to be of major importance to both, the West and the region of the Middle East and North Africa. Different actors, internally as well as externally, were striving to influence Egypt’s future. Despite the civil relationship between Egypt and the European Union, the transition towards liberal democracy faced a lot of complexity. Egypt has been dealing with corruption that arguably intensified after the Arab Spring. Factors that are deeply rooted in Egypt’s history and potential neocolonial reasons along with the European Union’s disregard towards “foreign” norms complicate achieving the liberal democratic standards set by the European Union.
Keywords: liberal democracy, European Union, Egypt, Arab Spring, authoritarian regime
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 3
1.1 Background ... 3 1.2 Research question ... 4 1.3 Relevance... 6 1.4 Thesis Outline ... 72. Literature Review ... 8
2.1 European Union’s Liberal Democracy Model... 8
2.1.1 Promoting Liberal Democracy ... 9
2.2 Internal factors ... 11 2.2.1 Authoritarian regime ... 11 2.2.2 Opposition groups ... 12 2.3 Conclusion ... 14
3. Theoretical framework ... 16
3.1 Democracy ... 17 3.1.1 liberal democracy... 20 3.2 Secularism ... 22 3.3 Nationalism ... 233.4 Use of Power in Europe ... 25
3.4.1 Normative Power Europe ... 25
3.4.2 Empire ... 28
3.5 Conclusion ... 29
4. Methodology ... 31
4.1 Type of research ... 31
4.2 Operationalization of sensitizing concepts ... 33
4.3 Validity ... 35
4.4 Conclusion ... 35
5. Challenges to liberal democracy in post-Arab Spring Egypt ... 37
5.1 The lack of democratic elites ... 39
5.2 Hypocrisy from the European Union... 40
5.3 Glorification of the military ... 44
5.3.1 Bilateral military aid from the United States of America ... 48
5.4 Opposition groups ... 49 5.5 Conclusion ... 51
6. Conclusion ... 54
7. Reference ... 57
Academic ... 57 Official documents ... 59 Digital sources ... 601. Introduction
1.1 Background
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and the list continues, as these were just a few countries headlining and dominating political debates in the year 2011 and remain of great concern in politics today. Countries that participated in the Arab Spring aimed to topple their authoritarian regimes. The demonstrations had a remarkable impact not only in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) but also on the West and its future relationship with the countries in the region of the MENA.
“You are not going to teach us about humanity, Europeans and Arabs have a different sense of humanity, values and ethics. Respect our values and ethics, as we do yours.” (Walsh, 2019).
This was the response of current Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, to the European leaders during their conference addressing basic liberal democratic principles such as human rights. The threat to sovereignty was noticeable in his speech as his remarks demonstrated hostility towards the European Union (EU) representatives, which brings the role of and the relationship with the EU into light. The Egyptian revolution was an opportunity for change and a gateway for different actors to pursue different futures for Egypt. The region of the MENA, which is referred to as the Southern neighborhood by the EU, has become significantly crucial for reasons such as security (Zahran, 2019). Bringing the case of Egypt into focus, the country maintains a powerful position within that specific region (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d)1. After the dynamic changes in Egypt and due to its geographic importance as well as political position in the MENA region, the EU strives towards new approaches regarding its relation with Egypt (Zahran, 2019).
In addition to Egypt’s role and position in the MENA region, the EU recognizes the country’s efforts and acknowledges its potentials as according to the United Nation Peacekeeping Mission Egypt holds the leading position in peacekeeping within the
region (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d). This position has been granted to Egypt mainly due to the fact of being the first Arab country signing a peace treaty recognizing the state of Israel (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d). A key element of the relationship between Egypt and the EU is that it ensures energy supply through the Suez Canal and thus strengthens the EU’s position in fighting terrorism and illegal migration in the MENA region (Zahran, 2019, p. 2).
With the aforementioned factors, democracy promotion especially in Egypt has been set on top of the EU’s agenda (Zahran, 2019, p. 2). Europe’s interest in endorsing democracy had grown massively after the downfall of the Soviet Union (Zahran, 2019, p. 1). Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a hegemonic discourse controlled the perception of the ideal model for spreading liberal democracy as the optimal form of a political organization while neglecting other political structures (Pace, 2011, p. 821). With respect to the relation between the EU and the countries in the MENA region, this hegemonic discourse is embodied by the EU and reflected in the EU’s role as a global actor especially in the fields of politics, culture, and economy (Pace, 2011, p. 821).
Despite the relationship between Egypt and the EU as outlined in this section, the process of Egypt becoming a liberal democratic country has been complicated. Internal obstacles within Egypt that resulted from internal as well as external events have made the transition complex and therefore the aim of this research is to analyze the internal obstacles preventing the country from transitioning to a liberal democracy.
1.2 Research question
Shifting focus to the current political situations, although numerous countries adopted to the EU’s model of liberal democracy such as the Southern European countries, Egypt has not yet met the qualifications to be considered a liberal democratic country as illustrated by the EU standards. Statistically speaking, since the early 1970s the number of electoraldemocracies has almost doubled yet in the region of the MENA it is has been declining (Bellin, 2004, p. 139). Now the question that remains iswhy has the region of the MENA remained hostile towards the efforts of shifting to a liberal
democracy? Multiple factors, internal as well as external come into play. Egypt’s colonial past cannot go unnoticed. “Mission civilatrice” was a civilian mission used during the colonial era to justify colonization by claiming to spread the idea of civilization (Pace, 2011, p. 821). The notion of “Mission civilatrice” illustrates a role resembling colonial powers by European colonial countries. In other words, the EU’s self-proclaimed role of reshaping the structure of the societies in developing countries reinforces the “Mission civilatrice” ideology.
Moreover, it is important to recognize the fact that Egypt is not a homogenous country and thus multiple actors play a role in the blockage of the EU’s model of liberal democracy. For instance, the Muslim Brotherhood strives towards an Islamic State ruled by the sharia law. While the military regime on the other hand, wants to maintain its current powerful position. Moreover, (religious) minorities such as the Copts in Egypt’s case, want their voices to be heard and considered (Fox, 2013). Another issue within the Egyptian society that cannot be overlooked is classism and the enormous gaps among social classes. Therefore the objective of this research is to identify the different internal spoilers to liberal democracy in post-Arab Spring Egypt. The following research question aims to offer understanding of the barriers to liberal democracy:
What are the internal obstacles that prevent post-Arab Spring Egypt from transitioning to liberal democracy as portrayed by the European Union?
Furthermore, an important remark regarding the research question, as the EU became highly invested in the MENA region after the Arab Spring that erupted early 2011, the EU set the promotion of liberal democracy in Egypt on top of its agenda as discussed previously and will be further elaborated on in the relevance section as well as the literature review. Therefore the notion of liberal democracy in this research refers back to the central role of the EU as a liberal democracy promoter. The objective of this research is not to perpetuate the common Western narrative and portray Egypt as “uncivilized” or incapable of adopting the liberal democracy model but rather to examine the internal obstacles while considering the colonial past of Egypt alongside
As multiple factors can play a role in explaining barriers to liberal democracy, the research question will be supported by sub-questions. There are three sub-questions proposed with the aim to provide a deeper understanding regarding possible intervening variables and ultimately aid to answer the research question with respect to the internal obstacles in Egypt and the hostility towards liberal democracy. As obstacles are often a result from resistance and previously colonized countries might be hostile due to reasons rooted in neocolonialism, the first sub-question proposed aims to highlight the relationship between the EU and Egypt. Secondly, political power of the military has been playing a key role in Egypt especially after Egypt gained its independence from the British. The power of the military that goes beyond issues dealing with defense in Egypt can also be perceived as an obstacle to liberal democracy and therefore the second sub-question captures the importance of the role of the military and the power it upholds in Egypt. The third and final sub question aims to cover the role of religion and the credibility of the religious groups perpetuating the religious narrative.
- Are there similarities between “Mission civilatrice” and the EU’s approach to promoting liberal democracy in the MENA region? - What is the role of the military in Egypt?
- Who endorses the role of religion in Egyptian politics and why?
1.3 Relevance
The EU has grown to be one of the most important actors at an international level and has a long history in promoting democracy globally dating back to when the Soviet Union withdrew its power from Eastern Europe (Huntington, 1991). After the Arab Spring the interest in policy changes increased as the EU took the opportunity to promote liberal democracy onto developing countries in its Southern neighborhood (Zahran, 2019, p. 9). In academia, Western liberal norms and standards have dominated the literature regarding the relation between the West and the countries located in the MENA, resulting in a narrative that perpetuates the common Western political ideology. Western political ideologies have become the “universal norm” and this is where the scientific relevance finds its importance. The West is inclined to criticize the actions of non-Western counties, more specifically developing countries,
while completely neglecting the historical and colonial past along with culture and tradition. Therefore this research aims to explore the roots of the reasons behind the complexity of adopting liberal democracy.
In the light of the foregoing, this study strives to highlight the internal obstacles in Egypt that prevent liberal democracy while considering tradition, religion, and Egypt’s colonial past. Moreover, with regards to the social relevance, it reflects on the EU’s important role as an international actor. As aforementioned, the EU became more invested in the region of the MENA after the eruption of the Arab Spring. The uprisings were a gateway for the EU to promote liberal democracy and thus further enhance their self-proclaimed vision as liberal democracy promoters at an international level. The problem identified is with regards to the EU’s messianic devotion and efforts of promoting their model of liberal democracy and educating developing countries about (European) norms and values while failing to acknowledge different contexts that influenced alternative forms of political powers in the MENA (Pace, 2011).
1.4 Thesis Outline
This thesis consists of six chapters each fulfilling its objective to answer the research question proposed. The first chapter provided a concrete introduction to the topic of discussion. The second chapter labeled ‘literature review’ is devoted to relevant studies in this field. In order to underpin the research question of this study, concepts in the theoretical framework chapter will be conceptualize with the purpose of providing a deeper understanding. The fourth chapter discusses methodological approaches and decisions and outlines the sensitizing concepts alongside their indicators. As for the fifth chapter, a thorough analysis will take place regarding the data obtained. Finally, a recap of the most important elements answering the research question and the sub-questions will be provided in the conclusion chapter as well as suggestions for further research.
2. Literature Review
This chapter aims to analyze existing literature with regards to the topic of the barriers to liberal democracy in Egypt. Throughout this literature review prior literature within this field will be critically assessed. The first part of the literature review consists of studies regarding the obstacles with respect to the efforts of the implementation of the liberal democracy model as portrayed by the EU in the region of the MENA. The second part of the literature review explores literature covering internal dilemmas in Egypt that could be identified as factors preventing liberal democracy from blossoming.
2.1 European Union’s Liberal Democracy Model
The EU’s democracy promotion consists of three factors: leverage, linkage, and governance (Zahran, 2019, p. 5). Within the context of EU, the leverage factor became significant after the Cold War and is intergovernmentally oriented. This factor highlights the EU’s messianic devotion to infuse democratic reforms onto developing countries (Lavenex, & Schimmelfennig, 2011). Moreover through the art of persuasion, authoritarian regimes are urged to concede power in return for other benefits. The linkage factor sets democratization at a societal level and covers socioeconomic necessities such as education, a functioning civil society, and economic liberalization. Finally, the governance factor constitutes as an important aspect in the transition process. This factor relies on accountability, transparency, and cooperation between states as it arranges the basis to democratic governance. However, the complexity of spreading liberal democracy in developing countries lies in the negative connotation of neocolonialism since it can be perceived as a way to regain political power and sovereignty over previously colonized countries (Barrios, 2005, p. 23). An important aspect to consider is the legitimacy of the universality of liberal democracy as it is limited to Western superiority undertones and interests and neglects alternative cultures, power systems and dynamics (Barrios, 2005, p. 24). The following section will specifically focus on literature regarding the implementation of the EU’s liberal democracy model in the region of the MENA and the potential obstacles faced.
2.1.1 Promoting Liberal Democracy
A study constructed by Joya (2011) took a predictive approach. In her article entitled “The Egyptian revolution: crisis of neoliberalism and the potential for democratic politics” the author sketched two probable scenarios regarding democracy in Egypt. The first possible outcome focused on the notion of neoliberalism descending in the Egyptian society due to limited number of changes in light of legitimate concerns for the labor industry. The second scenario sketched emphasized on entailing the continuity of mobilization by the public, mainly the students, workers, and peasants who seem to demand a radical retrenchment of neoliberalism. This research excels in explaining societal issues and shares great knowledge with regards to the role of the military and its power in Egypt. Although it touches upon actors that will be protagonists throughout this article such as the military, the research was predominantly analyzed through the scope of economic dilemmas.
In her article “Liberal or social democracy? Aspect dawning in the EU's democracy promotion agenda in the Middle East”, Pace (2011) outlined the history of liberal democracy as introduced by the EU and how it is portrayed as the optimal political system universally. The author then further analyzed the EU’s implementation of liberal democracy in the Middle East while having Egypt and Palestine as her two main case studies. An important remark in Pace’s research is the author’s observation of three specific reasons that have an impact on Egypt’s political climate. The first reasons discussed captures the struggle of essentials of life2. Followed by the second
reason, which revolves around the notion of state sovereignty and its role in protecting their country. The final reason highlights the importance of religion and tradition as the state aims to maintain the religious rulings and principles. In addition, Pace’s study examined the society in Egypt. An interesting founding with regards to the society in Egypt that reflects on the lack of democracy is due to internal failures such as the fact that the citizens are not yet conducive to function responsibly in a democratic society due to their conduciveness to authoritarian regimes. My research will further extend on point two and three, as these are common themes by political elites and internal spoilers that hinder Egypt from becoming a liberal democratic country.
A study by Zahran (2019) entitled “EU’s democracy promotion in Egypt before and after Arab uprisings” delves deeper into the liberal democratic elements and thus serves as a concrete foundation to this research. Zahran (2019) places a great emphasis on multiple policies implemented by the EU to enhance democracy promotion. Although the EU has successfully implemented policies regarding trade liberalization it did not yet succeed to bring changes in Egypt’s political environment. The author came to the conclusion that the EU should reshape its criteria in a way that is applicable to its Southern neighborhood by ensuring to fund and support those countries in which liberal democracy is adopted appropriately. Another conclusion drawn regarding the obstacles to liberal democracy is the fact that the certain EU member states would rather cooperate with authoritarian regimes to ensure security and stability.This research has great insights on the relationship between the EU and Egypt. A common mistake is the generalization of the MENA countries. Therefore it is important to acknowledge the fact that the counties in the MENA are not homogenous among each other nor are they heterogeneous internally. Egypt is no exception to the rule, and therefore the policies proposed by the EU should not be on a one size fits all basis but rather be altered to make it suitable for each country.
While discussing the EU, the term normative power cannot be overlooked. The study by Pace (2009) titled “Paradoxes and contradictions in EU democracy promotion in the Mediterranean: the limits of EU normative power” highlights the EU’s role as an internal actor to encourage political changes as it addresses the complex challenges to liberal democracy in the region of the Mediterranean. The challenges mentioned cover economic struggles, underdevelopment, and the power of authoritarian regimes. Pace analyzed how the struggle of implementing liberal democracy into the countries in the MENA is also due to the different interest of the member states in the EU. For instance, a great concern that is often prioritized by multiple member states in the EU is with respect to the topics of securing economy and ensuring security. With that being said, some EU member states would rather cooperate with authoritarian regimes and secure economy, security and ensure their oil privileges than to promote democracy and risk those benefits. This corresponds to one of Zahran’s conclusions discussed prior, as he mentioned that prioritization of different interests of EU member states result in the success of authoritarian leaders (Zahran, 2019).Moreover,
this study underpins the first sub-question with regards to the approach of the EU to promoting liberal democracy through the use of their normative power.
2.2 Internal factors
Democracy is perceived as a political system constructed through Western ideologies and interests (Barrios, 2005, p. 22). The practice of how dominant countries in the West exercise their powers and claim to infuse liberal democracy into developing countries, suggests a hidden agenda that democracy is a gateway to the process of imposing strategies onto previously colonized countries. Therefore fostering democracy promotion can be interpreted negatively and linked back to similar Western interventions in the region thus reinforce the idea of neocolonialism and result in a resistance. Additionally, the EU perpetuates the success of authoritarian leaders through its underhanded willingness to cooperate with authoritarian regimes in order to ensure security. Therefore the following subsections will be dedicated to literature regarding internal obstacles in Egypt.
2.2.1 Authoritarian regime
Delving deeper into the political power of the military and its legitimacy. Albrecht (2005) shed light on the nature of the authoritarian regime in Egypt in his article “How can opposition support authoritarianism? Lessons from Egypt”. Elements of this study serve as an optimal foundation to my research with respect to the power dynamics in Egypt. The author discovered that the authoritarian opposition has a major impact on the way in which the political environment in Egypt functions as it is an integrated element within the polity of authoritarianism. The role of political opposition groups in Egypt share different functions in comparison to those in democratic environments. The absence of authoritarian oppositions would have a negative impact on the authoritarian regime as it would result in losing its legitimacy. Not only will it have a negative impact on the legitimacy but it would also affect its power to control forces found outside the regime.
It is of importance to understand the core of the current political situation in Egypt. A study by Anderson (1991) examines the relation between the historical and colonial past in the Middle East and the presence of the authoritarian regimes. The nature of
monarchies in the Middle East relates back to the colonial era, especially the British imperial policy and its domination. The rise of authoritarianism in Egypt began when former Egyptian presidents toppled the British monarchy and officially declared Egypt as an Arab nationalist republic in 1952. A key word here is ‘nationalist’, implying that nationalism is perhaps an indicator of the prevention of a liberal democratic transition. Moreover, Anderson argues that the strength and presence of monarchy and authoritarianism in the Middle East is not merely due to regional cultures and tradition but also a result of state formation and nation building.
Furthermore the author continues to explain that in order to maintain consistency in the Middle East, the need of monarchy is essential especially in the early stages of nation building. Anderson’s research demonstrated that a monarch can successfully practice the centralization of authority (along with other factors which are not of major importance to this research) through evidently acting to acknowledge the historical prerogativesx of power and wealth. This argument contradicts the liberal
Western arguments that implies that liberal democracy is the optimal political system. Additionally,Anderson elaborates on how different types of rulings are effective for different countries. Not each country can apply and cope with the same ruling system, as they are not homogenous. A more recent research by Anderson published in 2011 specifically examines Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt after the Arab Spring. The study has demonstrated the significant influence and power that the army in Egypt upholds. Anderson concludes that political military power is deeply interlinked into the domestic economy, which resulted in hostility towards economic liberalization and the growth of private sectors (Anderson, 2011).
2.2.2 Opposition groups
Brining the opposition group into focus, Ayubi (2003) wrote a book entitled “Political Islam: religion and politics in the Arab world”. In the first chapter the author
discusses a notion that he refers to as the theory of Islamic State. This theory further extends on the relation between Islam and politics arguing whether there is an Islamic theory on politics. The notion of an Islamic political theory originated from Islamists by reinforcing their interpretations of religion into politics and thus create and Islamic State. This argument is especially relevant to in my research, as it is examines the
motives of the opposition group, which originated as a form of resistance. Moreover, it raises the question whether there is a correlation between Egypt’s colonial past and the importance of religion in politics. In other words, whether the colonial past resulted in Egypt going back to Islamic roots. Furthermore, the author argues that Islam is a religion of collective morals yet the root of Islamic sources such as the Quran, have limited guidance with regards to governing a State, which brings the debate of secularism and religion into perspective.
In the 19th century, the notion of colonialism through the importation of European norms and values was referred to as civilization and often as westernization (Asad, 2001). Nowadays these justifications have been sugarcoated with the words modernization and secularization due to their self-evidential nature. The dependency on religion and tradition can possibly be an outcome of neocolonial resistance. Asad (2001) outlines the history of the role of religion in Egypt and its relevance in Egyptian politics. The author refers to Egypt as a pre-modern Muslim state and argues that the actual definition of the sharia law was not present in Egypt but rather the political system was cultivated by multiple traditional methods. The traditional methods were not necessarily linked with the sharia law however, that does invalidate the importance of religion in the country. The author concludes that the increase in restriction regarding the sharia law could be perceived as a progressive measure by the nationalists and a temporary defeat by the Islamists and Muslim elites.
Bellin (2004) dedicated a study regarding the robustness of authoritarian regimes and the resistance from the countries in the MENA towards democracy. In the article “The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective” the author outlined five reasons that resulted in the MENA’s hostility towards democracy. Those reasons range from civil society, to economic statuses, to poverty, to geographic proximity, to culture and religion. Bellin argues that culture is a driving factor of exceptionalism in the region while emphasizing on the fact that Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive. Bellin’s statement regarding the relation between religion and democracy confirms the aforementioned statement with regards to Western narratives demonizing religion. Although the interpretation of religion by opposition groups is most likely a factor that hinders liberal democracy in Egypt, it is
Ayubi (2003), when it comes to the matter of governing, official Islamic sources have very limited guidance and therefore it is rather the interpretation of the powerful Muslim elites that is considered to be the issue. Moreover, Bellin compares the countries in the MENA to other regions who shifted towards democracy and directly quoting the author she claims that “the MENA are in no way unique in their poor endowment with the prerequisites of democracy” (Bellin, 2004, p. 141). Yet in her research, the author failed to provide a comparative overview from a historical and cultural context thus completely neglected the process of colonization and decolonization. Moreover, the author did not justify the reasons as to why the countries in the MENA should shift towards democracy and how this political system is effective in that region.
On the topic of religion, Hamid (2011) discusses the rise of Islamists in the Middle East. In his study, the author states that in the 1990s there was an increase focus on democratic reforms however he argued that Islamists will not comply with the liberal changes and in order to maintain their ideologies, Islamists continue to uphold the title of social conservatives. However, over the recent years Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, modified their image and claim to be a civil democratic state with Islamic references which suggests the separation of the mosque from the state however, not religion from politics. In addition, an important remark made by Hamid that is relevant to this research, is the fact that Islamists seem to identify themselves as opposition groups use religious arguments to criticize the regime when the ruling government tends to be pro-Western. This could be perceived as obstacles as to why Egypt has not yet made the transition towards liberal democracy.
2.3 Conclusion
Thus to sum it up, this chapter has been divided into two sections. The first section of the literature review highlighted the barriers that prevent the transition towards liberal democracy as portrayed by the EU. These obstacles include criticisms with regards to the liberal democracy model as it consists of Western ideologies and is it not universally applicable, the different interests among member states, and neocolonialism. The second part of the literature review examined literature with
respect to the internal factors in Egypt. The military played a key role in preventing liberal democracy to blossom in Egypt. Additionally, attention was centered on characteristics pointing towards nationalism, the colonial past, and the importance of religion. Moreover, many researches failed to mention the reasoning as to why Egypt should transition towards liberal democracy. This thesis on the other hand, does not imply that Egypt should become a liberal democracy according to Western standards and recognizes the effectiveness of different ruling systems. Moreover, this study clearly addresses the role of the EU with respect to post-Arab Spring Egypt and explores the barriers that prevent the EU from introducing its liberal democracy model in Egypt. Therefore the added value of this thesis is that it does not perpetuate the dominant Western narrative but rather analysis the barriers to liberal democracy while considering Egypt’s colonial past along with the value of tradition and religion and how the importance of those factors originated.
3. Theoretical framework
The main concepts and their relevance with respect to this research will be carefully described and elaborated on in the theoretical framework. Concepts and theories will be identified and thoroughly explained with the objective of underpinning the sub-questions and the research question of this study on the obstacles in Egypt hindering the transition to liberal democracy. As liberal democracy is the main concept to this study, it is crucial to lay a foundation in respect to this notion in order to be able to further build upon. To fully comprehend liberal democracy, one has to acknowledge the fact that liberal democracy goes beyond the basic principles of democracy as will be highlighted within this chapter. Therefore the first concept of discussion is democracy, this concept is important to conceptualize as it provides an introduction to the term liberal democracy. After an in-depth discussion with regards to democracy and thus laying a foundation for liberal democracy, liberal democracy will be conceptualized. Referring back to the central research question, the notion of liberal democracy is the core element within this study. Therefore it is important to not merely examine this concept but also reflect on the role of the EU within the context of liberal democracy and its promotion.
Secularism is the third concept of discussion within the theoretical framework. Secularism is a key element that serves to structure liberal democracy and is present in both definitions (democracy and liberal democracy). The literature review shed light on the debate between a secular versus non-secular state as it played a major role in Egyptian politics. Moreover, the role of religion can be perceived as one of the obstacles as to why Egypt has not yet made the transition towards liberal democracy. As a form of resistance, religious political groups had been constructed with the purpose to reinforce religion and tradition into politics through ruling under the sharia law. Followed by the concept nationalism, this concept highlights the notion of belongingness. After Egypt gained its independence from the British, Egypt declared itself as an Arab nationalist republic, which demonstrated a strong sense of nationalism. The glorification of the Egyptian military is a huge part of nationalism in Egypt and reflects on the power of the military that goes beyond issues dealing with defense within the country, which will be further elaborated on in this chapter. Due to the fact that the political power of the military and the domestic economy are heavily
intertwined in Egypt, it resulted in a strong form of resistance towards the growth and liberalization of the economy especially in the private sectors, which is perceived as a barrier to liberal democracy (Anderson, 2011). Moreover, the concept of nationalism also aims to touch upon centralized power as it is one of the main obstacles to liberal democracy therefore a great emphasis will be put on the power distribution in Egypt and the power the military upholds.
The final section within this chapter is labeled as Use of Power in Europe. The research question of this study portrays the EU as the actor that aspires Egypt to democratize. Therefore the aim of this section is to conceptualize two major concepts with regards to how the EU exercises its power. While discussing the EU, the term normative power cannot be overlooked thus the first concept of discussion is ‘normative power Europe’. The second concept within this section is the notion of Europe as ‘empire’. This term highlights the intergovernmental ideologies of the EU and the interests of different member states. In addition, it aids in answering the first sub-question proposed regarding the similarities between “Mission civilatrice” and the EU’s approach to promoting liberal democracy in the MENA region.
3.1 Democracy
Democracy is a concept that is ambiguous and can be discussed from different angles. Therefore the first the explanation that will be provided is by Huntington. The author states that democracy is a dynamic concept and defines it as a form of government in which “democracy is described in terms of sources of authority for government, purposed served by government, and procedures for constituting government” (Huntington, 1994, p. 6). Moreover, Huntington argues that the essence of democracy consists of elections, free, open, and fair. The author explains the concept of democracy through the use of factors that emphasize on the strengthening, weakening, and promotion of democracy. Additionally, potential obstacles to democracy are addressed in his work, which is the core element of this research. However there are some limitation to his definition, although Huntington provides an in-depth explanation with regards to this concepts, not all factors are applicable to this case. Additionally, his perception of Islam within the context of democracy is problematic, which is another reason as to why the perspective from a different scholar is essential.
The first applicable factor outlined by Huntington covers the legitimacy problems of authoritarian regimes. After the Arab Spring, institutions promoting liberal democracy such as the EU envisioned a liberal democratic future for countries participating in the Arab Spring. However, since the notion of democracy has been under the spotlight, the failures of democracy are more likely to be brought to light and the misfortunes of the authoritarian regimes tend to fade and eventually be neglected (Huntington, 1991, p. 19). Although Huntington examines authoritarian governments from a negative context, Anderson (1991) argues that the strength and presence of monarchy and authoritarianism in the Middle East is crucial to prevent further destabilization especially in the early stages of state formation and nation building.
The second applicable factor revolves around policy changes executed by external actors, which is the EU in this case. The EU has a long history of fostering democracy promotion. Before the EU was remodeled, the institution was named the European Community which was an economic association founded by the first six member states. The European Community is a key actor in the consolidation process of democracy in the South of Europe (Huntington, 1991, p. 14). When the Soviet Union withdrew its power from Eastern Europe, the process of democratization took place (Huntington, 1991, p. 14). Nowadays the EU consists of 27 member states, which puts them in a powerful position at an international level.
An example in which the EU exercised its power and policy changes occurred is when the EU adjusted its neighborhood policy towards Egypt after the Mubarak regime was toppled. The role of women in the Arab uprisings could not go unnoticed (Johansson-Nogués, 2013). The dynamic changes that transpired after the revolution in Egypt encouraged the EU to alter its neighborhood policy especially with regards to the role of women in society and women’s rights (Kunz & Maisenbacher, 2017). Despite the efforts of the EU, the implementation of this policy in Egypt has been complex.
Moreover, Huntington addresses obstacles preventing a country to adapt to the principles of democracy. Huntington states that, Muslim majority countries are predominantly ruled by nondemocratic regimes, for instance the nature of
dictatorships and military regime systems in the vast majority of the Sub-Saharan African countries. This anti-Islam ideology has also been mentioned in his work Clash of Civilizations. The article, especially the roots of the Muslim rage is heavily influenced by the work of the orientalist Bernard Lewis who has been accused by his nemesis Edward Said of misrepresenting Islam and perpetuating the common Western narrative by portraying Western ideologies as civilized (Owen, 2012). Similarly to the presence of authoritarianism in developing countries, Huntington argues that religious fundamentalism has established its vital role in the Muslim majority countries in response to democracy. Moreover, the leveling tendencies of democracy could result in an oligarchy type of authoritarian government. In societies where two or more different religious, ethic or racial groups are present, a communal dictatorship can be put into place with the objective to establish control over the society. One of the major criticisms of Huntington’s work is that the scholar argues that religion is a major obstacle to democracy since it sets limits. From his perspective, democracy and religion, with an emphasis on Islam, cannot coexist which makes his interpretation of democracy problematic to a certain extent. It seems that the hostility towards Islam can arguable be identified by the insurmountable ignorance of orientalist scholars with regards to elements that do not align with their perceived reality. Influential scholars such as Lewis and Huntington perpetuate this orientalist narrative, which seems rather detached or impartial.
The second definition for democracy will be provided by Fukuyma (2005). The author argues that in order to have democracy there has to be a well functioning state. The reason as to why this study by Fukuyama is highly relevant is due to the fact that it discusses the concept of democracy in respect to countries in the Arab Middle East that experienced conflict and therefore require state building. The author states that the Arab Middle East has demonstrated antiliberalism mainly perpetuated by Islamist extremists, which complicates the process of democracy (Fukuyama, 2005). Unlike Huntington who expresses that countries with a vast majority of Muslims are incapable of shifting towards democracy, Fukuyama makes a clear distinction between Islam as a religion in its entirety and Islamist extremists as well as he states that antiliberalism makes the process more complex yet it is not impossible.
Furthermore, Fukuyama reflects on multiple interventions led and justified by the West such as the intervention in Iraq. The scholar points out that Europe and the United States intervened in authoritarian transitional agencies for their own beneficial purposes (Fukuyama, 2005). This underlines the first sub-question as it reinforces the idea of spreading ‘liberalization’ and underpins neocolonialism. Although the EU has not physically intervened in Egypt yet, the EU is economically involved in Egypt as previously touched upon when discussing the New European Neighborhood Policy and is inclined to intervene if necessary. The purpose of the New European Neighborhood Policy is not only to bring the EU and its neighbors closer but also to introduce liberal democratic principles specifically gender equality after the Arab Spring (Kunz & Maisenbacher, 2017). However, implementing the New European Neighborhood Policy in Egypt has a neocolonial undertone. In this day and age, Western civilization is perceived as the universal standard indicating advancement (Kunz & Maisenbacher, 2017, p. 129). In order for Egypt to receive the desperately needed funds funded by the EU, the state has to comply with the European norms and value set by the EU, hence highlighting the neocolonial dimension.
3.1.1 liberal democracy
For more than a century, the term democracy has meant ‘liberal democracy’ in the West (Zakaria, 1997). In order to conceptionalize the notion of liberal democracy, the explanation by Zakaria will be used. The reason as to why his study is most applicable is due to the fact that Zakaria focuses on the rise of illiberal democracies implying that they are capable of becoming liberal. Zakaria conceptualized liberal democracy as a political system that is not only limited to open, fair and, free election but also consists of the following characteristics: separation of powers, rule of law, the protection of speech, liberties, and religious freedom. Therefore, the definition provided by Zakaria (1997) goes beyond Huntington’s explanation in The Third Wave as discussed prior. Huntington (1994) argued that the essence of democracy consists of elections, free, open, and fair and emphasizes on the fact that even though the outcome of governments chosen through elections may be corrupted, insufficient, and irresponsible, they are still considered democratic governments as they have been democratically selected. This however clashes with his argument that Muslim majority countries are not eligible of becoming democratic. Applying this definition
by Huntington to the case of Egypt after the Arab Spring, all the aforementioned factors apply and as a result, the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected. When the Muslim Brotherhood was ousted by the military, current president Abdelfatah El-Sisi who’s ruling categorize as a military regime had been democratically elected.
Zakaria on the other hand, introduces the term constitutional liberalism, which is not limited to the process of appointing a government but also includes the objective and initiatives of the government. It reflects on the traditions rooted in Western history that strive to protect the dignity and autonomy of individuals against any sort or form of coercion from sources such as the state, society, or church. Thus, in other words, Zakaria argues that constitutional liberalism has brought democracy however democracy does not result in constitutional liberalism. Zakaria further argues that democracy with the absence of constitutional liberalism is not solely inadequate but can also be perceived as a threat as it leaves space for the abuse of power, erosion of liberty, divisions of societal groups, and even potential war. Although according to Huntington’s definition of democracy, Egypt could arguably fall under the democratic category as demonstrated, Zakaria points out that the major distinction between constitutional liberalism and democracy is the governmental authority. Constitutional liberalism highlights the limitation of power whereas democracy accumulates power. Over the years, a vast majority of Western leaders have fostered the construction of powerful and centralized developing countries. Before the rise of authoritarianism in Egypt, which began when the British Empire had been overthrown, the sovereignty of the states in the region of the MENA were under the authority of the European imperial policy (Anderson, 1991, p. 3). For some states the monarchal system is essential to maintain control over the state, leaders of those developing countries justify authoritarianism as a necessity to control chaotic societies from erupting into further destabilization especially in the early stages of nation building such as the after the Arab Spring (Anderson, 1991).
The EU has successfully implemented policies with regards to trade liberalization however the implementation of liberal democracy as not been achieved yet (Zahran 2019, pp. 13 – 14). A common political system implemented by governments contains
2). Therefore the notion of Western liberal democracy may not be the ultimate form of democracy but rather one out of the many possibilities that currently exist. Each country adapts to the most effective form of ruling, as states are not homogenous the implementation of liberal democracy might not always be plausible. The EU should restructure its criteria in a way that is applicable to the states in its Southern neighborhood and thus not have a one size fits all mentality.
Moreover, the notion of constitutional liberalism links two main ideas. Firstly, it is constitutional as it relies on tradition dating back to the romans and the rule of law (Zakaria, 1997, p. 3). Secondly, it is liberal due to its philosophical nature originating from Greek history of individual liberty. The notion of constitutional liberalism was constructed in the United States and Western Europe, hence the Western ideologies behind it (Zakaria, 1997, p. 3). This political ideology was constructed in order to protect the right to property and life along with the freedom of speech and freedom of religion for each individual. These characteristics are found back in the notion of liberal democracy by the EU. The EU is devoted to strengthening liberal democracy in its external neighborhoods in accordance to the valued principles of liberal democracy as priory conceptualized in this chapter including liberty, freedom, rule of law, and protection of human rights (Human Rights Watch, 2020). The European Council had adopted a strategic framework and an action plan in the year 2012 on democracy and the protection of human rights. The framework is with regards to the EU’s external relations and serves to improve the consistency and effectiveness of policies within the upcoming ten years through identifying the objectives, principles, and priorities (European Parliament, 2018). In order to secure these rights, constitutional liberalism reassures to separate the church and state, avoids centralized power, impartial tribunals and courts, and equality.
3.2 Secularism
Secularism is a component that has been discussed in the conceptualization of democracy and liberal democracy. The reason as to why Berg-Sørensen’s interpretation of secularism is used to conceptualize this concept is because the scholar defines it in the context of liberal democracy. According to the author, the most plausible interpretation of secularization states as follows “oscillates between a
sober and minimalist conception of differentiation between societal ‘subsystems’/fields or institutions and a maximalist interpretation of strict separation of state and politics from religion” (Berg-Sørensen, 2013, pp. 43 – 44). Considering the definition provided by Berg-Sørensen (2013), within this research the concept of secularism will be measured from a non-ecclesiastical context, in other words the extent to which there is an absence of religious references in matters regarding state and politics.
Regarding secularism in the case of Egypt, in the year 1919 the first secular party in Egypt called Hizb ‘Almani (Secular Party) was established (Najjar, 1996). The ideologies of Hizb ‘Almani did not intertwine with religion but were rather based on political, national, and social identities. Moreover, Hizb ‘Almani was not constructed to oppose religion but merely to reject the idea of authorities using religion to buttress power (Najjar, 1996, p. 3). Alongside the establishment of the first secular party in Egypt, in the early twentieth century the Muslim Brotherhood had emerged in a form of resistance to secularism (Pahwa, 2013). After the downfall of the Mubarak regime the Muslim Brotherhood prioritized power while claiming to protect the state, popular majorities, and individual rights (Pahwa, 2013). Their political activity centralized religion as a political tool in order to build an Islamic state and withstand secularism and thus complicate the process of liberal democratization (Pahwa, 2013).
3.3 Nationalism
The notion of nationalism as a political ideology became relevant in the 18th century
due to its impact on societies as it mobilized individuals and further reinforced the importance of sovereignty (Poulton, 1997). Similarly to the concept ‘democracy’ as conceptualized previously, the concept of nationalism is ambiguous due to the fact that it is perceived as a dynamic phenomenon that is socially constructed (Finlayson, 2007). Hobsbawn’s definition of nationalism extends on the construction of a nation state and argues that nationalism is influenced by and influences development on multiple levels (Hobsbawn, 1992). Gellner (1983) shed light on nationalism as a political doctrine in which the national unites and political ideologies are in harmony. Although the definition of nationalism is ambiguous, the common denominator among the definitions is that fact that nationalism emphasizes on the belongings of the
individuals within a society through shared similarities (Poulton, 1997). Considering the definition by Poulton stating that nationalism as a political ideology strives to reinforce state sovereignty, it is believed that Arab nationalism is rooted in the action of regaining independence from Western colonizers (Dawn, 1991). The definition of Arab nationalism is the feeling of oneness of the Arab people through the Arabic language, Arab cultural predominance, and the strong bond of Islamic religion (Aziz, 2009, p. 59). Dawn (1991) stated that the “Arab awakening” in which the Arab nations were shifting towards secularism was a part of the process of Arab nationalism. The formation of this concept was adopted by the Arab countries from the European notion of patriotism, which reflects on the fact that the Muslim Arabs took the lead in their countries (Dawn, 1991). Dawn argues that in Egypt specifically, the desire of patriotism originated from the deprivation of the Islamic country as the objective was to adopt Western science to improve civilization while holding onto religion. This is also the period in which militaries were glorified and praised. On the topic of the political power of the military, after the military coup d'etat in 1952, which resulted Egypt from shifting from a kingdom to a republic, political power of the military had been remarkably powerful. This underpins the second sub-question regarding the role and power of the military in Egypt. During the Arab Spring in early 2011, the military united with the protestors demonstrating solidarity as they were chanting slogans of unity (Heinrich-Böll, 2014). Nowadays, the military in Egypt asserts power that goes beyond defense, which can be perceived as a barrier to the transition to liberal democracy especially regarding economic liberalization. The domestic economy and political military power are deeply intertwined in Egypt, which is resulting in a resistance towards the growth and liberalization of the economy especially in the private sectors (Anderson, 2011).
Nationalism in the form of military empowerment made an appearance under the ruling of former Egyptian president and colonel, Gamal Abdel Nasser. Rooting from Arab nationalism and military glorification, the term Nasserism suggests a movement towards modernization with Nasser as the protagonist. The ideology behind Nasserism regards Egypt as a developing country that is undergoing a decolonization process and striving towards national prosperity through new leadership and modernization (Winckler, 2004). Therefore, the notion of Nasserism was considered to be an attempt to make the transition from traditional forms of society to a
modernized society. The interpretation of this term combines factors of social Arab nationalist political ideologies including the element of nationalism and anti-imperialism.
3.4 Use of Power in Europe
As discussed in the introduction, the EU has a history of spreading democracy especially after the downfall of the Soviet Union. As many countries in the West underwent the experience of transitioning towards democracy, Huntington strongly believed that the EU (European Community at that time) had an influential role. Additionally, the scholar stated that countries in the MENA did not fall under this wave of democratization (Huntington, 1993). The EU is considered to be a unique institution as it relies on normative power to execute its powers. It is important to acknowledge the fact that even among the member states of the EU, differences in interest arise concerning the region of the MENA as outlined in the previous chapter. Therefore the following two concepts namely ‘normative power Europe’ and the EU as an ‘empire’ will serve to underpin the first sub-question regarding the EU’s approach to promoting liberal democracy.
3.4.1 Normative Power Europe
The constant debate on whether the EU embodies a civilian or a military power has been revitalized by Manners. Manners (2002) introduced the EU as normative power Europe, which reflects on the institution’s ability to adjust the norms at an international level. The concept of normative power Europe grew massively in the field of politics after the Cold War. Through spreading and influencing norms rather than enforcing them with the use of economic or military sources, the EU aims to set normative standards. Normative power is the distinctive element and the core principle on which the EU is build upon. Manners (2002) segregates the EU into the three hearts with the first one being the ontological quality which refers to the assumption on what the EU is, in other words how power functions. In addition, the ontological quality is regarded from a historical evolution context and is a hybrid polity suggesting a multilevel governance. Although the EU professes a strong commitment to liberal democracy, hybrid polity is present due to the fact that the governments of certain members within the EU deviate towards authoritarianism
(Kelemen, 2020). The second category is labeled as positivist quantitative or empirical which highlights the observation of how EU actually acts. This notion reflects on the liberal democratic elements described previously through its five core norms which liberty, peace, democracy, rule of law, human rights and its four minor norms covering discrimination, sustainable development, good governance. Finally Manners describes the normative quality prescribing how the EU should act according to normative standards and the universality of those standards.
Manners (2002) introduced the term normative power Europe and argued that the origins of the EU’s normative power are constructed through three institutional elements. Firstly the hybrid polity as previously touched upon and described as multilevel governance, followed by the EU’s political legal constitutions, which in other words captures the treaty constructed order, and finally the historical context, which considers the legacy of World War I and World War II (Manners, 2002). The aforementioned institutional elements assisted with collectively capturing the member states’ principles under one framework. The objective of normative power does not merely cover the fact that the EU is build upon a normative foundation but also to spread and demonstrate normativity in global politics. Sjursen (2006) on the other hand identifies normative power as a civilian power. The legal element that set the foundation of the external relations and polices is one of the main indicators of the EU’s normative power. Additionally, conflicts in interests often tend to occur regarding the topic of external policies, especially multilaterals. Clashes often happen in areas such as sovereignty, human rights, and foreign policies. Furthermore, through Sjursen’s scope, a challenge to normative power is the process of the construction of a criterion with respect to the legitimate responsibilities and actions of the international system and community.
Regarding the relationship between Egypt and the EU, four out of the six ways in which the EU diffuses its norms onto other states as outlined by Manners (2002) are applicable. Moreover, those diffusion factors are relevant to this study as they particularly aid in answering the sub-questions. The first factor labeled contagion highlights the fact that the diffusion of European norms is a result of unconsciously transmitting European political ideologies onto other states and political actors. This was present in the early stages of Egypt gaining its independence as they adopted the
idea of patriotism (Dawn, 1991). The second factor Manners discusses is the informational diffusion, which results from a variety of strategic communication approaches including policies constructed by the EU such as the New European Neighborhood Policy discussed previously in this chapter. The EU constructed two institutional structures, The EU Special Representative and three Task Forces, as an immediate response to the Arab Spring with the sole purpose to handle developments after the Arab Spring (Bicchi, 2014). However, an issue faced during the implementation of the newly introduced institutional structures highlighted the conflict of the disengagement of certain member states, as discussed in the literature review.
Transference is the third applicable factor described by Manners wherein he addresses the process of diffusion through aid, trade, and assistance mainly with states in need. The European Neighborhood policy was the main source for aids and funds to the EU’s Southern neighborhood during and after the Arab Spring (Bicchi, 2014). Additionally, with regards to recent EU funds, the institution has stated that the funds have to be monitored to ensure that it will not be contributing in actions violating any human right principles as introduced by the EU (Human Rights Watch, 2020). This factor reinforces the idea of neocolonialism as the EU uses economic pressure to control a situation in a formerly colonized state.
With regards to liberal democracy, the principle of human rights plays a key role. The EU is strong advocate for human rights, in the recent events in Egypt when individuals were protesting against the current military regime under El Sisi’s government, the EU reaffirmed the core elements of the relationship between the EU and Egypt which are democracy, human rights, and the rule of law (Human Rights Watch, 2020). El-Sisi emphasized on the importance of acknowledging and understanding the difference in priorities stating “The priority in Europe is achieving and maintaining well-being for its people. Our priority is preserving our countries and stopping them from collapse, destruction and ruin, as you see in many surrounding states.” (Ahram, 2019 a). This highlights the final factor labeled cultural filter as this factorcovers elements that impact the international norms and the political climate in developing countries (Manners, 2002). In other words, the cultural filter affects the
this factor overlaps with the transference factor as demonstrated in the aforementioned example. In order for Egypt to receive funds from the EU, the state is obliged to comply with norms such as fundamental human right principles introduced by the EU.
3.4.2 Empire
The concept of empire as discussed by Zielonka (2016) is important due to Egypt’s history of colonization by the infamous British Empire. On November 1st 2019, the Egyptian Parliament accused the EU of interfering in Egypt’s internal affairs and demonstrating double standards regarding human rights (Ahram, 2019 b). Through meddling in internal affairs, the core principle of the EU-Egypt partnership had been violated as it is based on mutual cooperation rather than intervention (Ahram, 2019 b). The notion of the EU as an empire highlights the first sub-question with regards to the EU’s approach to promote liberal democracy in the MENA. Empire in the context of the EU underpins the idea of the enforcement of domestic constrains onto developing countries. These constrains are often implemented through the form of political as well as economic domination (Zielonka, 2016). The states targeted by the EU are destabilized countries found in the EU’s neighborhood. The countries that fall under this category were most likely previously colonized by an EU member state (Zielonka, 2016). As normative power Europe is a key element of the EU, empire replicates this notion as it relies on the attractive characteristics of normative power to underhandedly implement European political norms and values onto the target states (Zielonka, 2016, p. 475). However, a key element when discussing the concept of empire is the fact that it does not merely depend on soft power in order to transmit political ideologies but also relies on the use of its market power as the EU has a strong economic position globally due to its single market. This type of economic power often comes in the shape of bribes, sanctions, and coercion (Zielonka, 2016, p. 475). Briefly touching upon the EU’s market power, Damro (2012) argues that the identity of the EU embodies its institutional elements and heavily relies on the institution and its capability to successfully externalize regulatoryi measuresi. Zielonka
further elaborates on the conditions implemented by the EU, which state that in order to receive benefits such as integration, forms of aid, and liberalization, the implementation of European administrative must be fulfilled (p. 477).
3.5 Conclusion
Thus to sum thus chapter up, democracy and nationalism are both ambiguous terms and therefore it was of utmost importance to highlight the perspectives of multiple scholars. The definition provided by Huntington (1994) served as base to further build upon. The scholar identified the main characteristics to democracy which according to him are: elections, free, open, and fair and further puts an emphasis on the outcome of governments resulting from democratically held elections could demonstrate elements of corruption, insufficiency, irresponsibility yet still be considered democratic governments. However, his argument with respect to Islam and democracy being mutually exclusive has been criticized as it implies that countries that have a vast majority of Muslims are incapable of becoming democratic. Fukuyama’s (2005) conceptualization of democracy respectfully disagrees with Huntington’s as the scholar emphasized that Islamic extremists make this procedure more complex yet not impossible. The combined definitions of democracy by Huntington and Fukuyama set a concrete foundation for comprehending the notion of liberal democracy. In his explanation of liberal democracy, Zakaria (1997) expands upon Huntington’s definition as he introduces the term constitutional liberalism, which is absolutely necessary in a liberal democracy. Elements including, separation of powers, rule of law, protection of speech, liberties, and religious freedom serve as the main characteristics of liberal democracy. Moreover, Zakaria (1997) focuses on the rise of illiberal democracies implying that they are capable of becoming liberal unlike Huntington denying that Islam and democracy can coexist. With regards to the concept nationalism the common element in the definitions of nationalism is the sense of belongings of the individuals within a society through shared similarities. The definition presented by Poulton (1997) is most applicable as it portrays nationalism as a political ideology that strives to reinforce state sovereignty. The notion of state sovereignty was present when discussing Arab nationalism and once again when discussing the role and unity of the Egyptian military during the Arab Spring. In the case of Egypt, nationalism will be examined within the context of military glorification. The military played a key role in the Arab Spring and continues to uphold power. Moreover, the military has been perceived as an obstacle to liberal democracy as it prevents economic liberalization.
Additionally, the role of the EU is outlined in the section labeled as ‘Use of Power in Europe’. Two forms of power have been touched upon, firstly normative power Europe as explained by Manners (2002). The EU’s normative power makes the institution unique. As previously explained, normative powers highlights the elements that construct normative power Europe which are the hybrid polity, historical context, and legal political constitution. The second form of power introduced within the context of the EU is empire as explained by Zielonka (2016), which is characterized through market power and intergovernmentalism. Empire relies on normative power to a certain extent however the main aim of Europe as an empire is to shed light on the reinforcement of neocolonialism through the enforcement of domestic constrains onto developing countries, these constrains are often implemented through the form of political as well as economic domination.
