A Theory of Critical Junctures for Democratization: A Comparative Examination of Constitution-Making in Egypt and Tunisia

Amal Jamal*, Anna Kensicki

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Most studies on constitution-making emphasize how cultural and institutional characteristics independently impact successful democratic transitions. This article proposes a new approach to theorizing this process, positing that the character of institutional and cultural elements and the relationships between them give rise to a unique temporal and political context called a critical juncture, with qualities and characteristics that place some states on trajectories toward success and others toward failure. By analyzing and comparing the events surrounding the Egyptian and Tunisian transitions, we demonstrate how the placement of these institutional and cultural elements put Tunisia on the path to democratization and led Egypt inevitably toward autocracy. The findings show that, where these junctures fail to instill civic ideals and avenues for all parties' participation, the political environment becomes uninhabitable for successful transition.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)185-222
Number of pages38
JournalLaw and Ethics of Human Rights
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 May 2016

Keywords

  • Arab Spring
  • constitution-making
  • critical juncture
  • democratization

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Theory of Critical Junctures for Democratization: A Comparative Examination of Constitution-Making in Egypt and Tunisia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this