Although the 2011 uprisings in Egypt led to the fall of Hosni Mubarak, they have not yet been able to change the nature of the country’s political system. A year after the country’s first non-military president took office, Egypt’s political situation became more or less similar to the way it had been before 2011. The structure of the relationship between the state and the society in Egypt, highly affected by vast military influence, could be explained through Guillermo O'Donnell’s model of “Bureaucratic Authoritarianism”. The Islamists’ weakness in establishing a powerful government granted a proper excuse for the military to obtain direct rule over the country through a modern 21st-century coup d’état. The basis for legitimizing this move, in addition to the Islamists’ weakness, was the claim that the 2011 coup d’état had the same public support as the 1952 coup d’état. Consequently, the military enacted legal mechanisms and introduced a presidential candidate who ultimately won the elections, giving back the military its previous position. It seems that the military authoritarian government in Egypt would enjoy relative legitimacy by focusing on providing economic and political stability, while paving the way for preserving its own long-term politico-economic interests. Therefore, it is likely that if the status quo– which relies upon widespread repression of the Islamists and the weakness and passivity of the liberal movements– is maintained, the authoritarian military rule over Egypt will continue.
مطالب مرتبط با کلید واژه " Political system "
The present Russian political system is tied up with Putin's name; and Putin is consi-dered as a full-fledged political reality. Today's powerful Russia, which has got a new life after the Cold War and the weak collapse period, and has a major impact on global developments including the Middle East, is not understandable except under this title. What inspired writers to analyze Putin's performance is to study the causes of the exis-tence of a personality such as him and the formation of Putinism in today's Russian so-ciety. Knowing the performance of Putin and Putinism requires a clear answer to some questions like, why the phenomenon of Putinism in the 21st century whit democratic structure has emerged and persisted, and what is Putinism at all? The hypothesis that will be presented to understand this issue is that the long-standing political culture of Russia and the geographical and historical imperative of Russian nation have led to the emergence and continuation of Putinism in today's Russian society, as well as the secu-rity and economic problems of the 1990s, humiliation, pressure, and blockade of the west against Russia is the mainstay of the emergence and continuation of Putinism. To investigate the hypothesis of research, firstly we examine the system of pseudo-democracy and then we will discuss Putin's functions and behaviors in the economic, political, and social spheres. Finally, we will discuss about the Russian domestic context and the external factors that led to the formation of Putinism.
This paper tries to investigate the association between effectiveness and legitimacy in different political systems, applying a documentary method. To do so, firstly the notion of effectiveness is introduced followed by the notion of legitimacy and then their asso-cnnnnnnn n eeeeeeeeee Snnce eee iiiiiical iirrraeeee ff eeeeeee effeciieeeess ss ccacce, iiis term was defined through its opposite terms like ineffectiveness and crisis. The legiti-macy of political systems in this paper contains different types of legitimacy including divine, popular and combined legitimacy. The paper concludes that the main problem of the states is not the challenges to legitimacy and effectiveness but the real challenge is to draw the trajectory of goals and limitations in policy making and decision making.