Janine A. Clark

THE CONDITIONS OF ISLAMIST MODERATION: UNPACKING CROSS-IDEOLOGICAL COOPERATION IN JORDAN

In 1989, Jordan suspended marshal law, lifted media restrictions, expanded freedoms of association, and reintroduced parliamentary elections. Although these steps ushered in a dramatic, albeit limited, political opening, by 1997, many of these measures had been reversed. Indeed, today throughout most of the Middle East, the incipient democratization processes of the 1990s are labeled as “stalled” at best. However, as Jillian Schwedler states, these structural openings and closings do not provide the whole story of these Throughout the region, Islamists, liberals, leftists, and conservatives frequently sit together in opposition blocs and coordinate activities against the state—activities on which they did not cooperate a decade earlier—while remaining bitter rivals in other areas. The Higher Committee for the Coordination of National Opposition Parties (HCCNOP) in Jordan, founded in the mid-1990s in response to normalization efforts by Jordan with Israel, is one such example. A committee of thirteen opposition parties, it includes the Communist and Baءthist parties and the Muslim Brotherhoods Islamic Action Front (IAF). The IAF is very proud of its participation in the HCCNOP and claims that it is a democratic model for the Arab world. It points to the fact that it coordinates deals and “shakes hands” with secularists as evidence of the Partys moderation. The IAFs participation in the HCCNOP raises a variety of questions regarding the relationship between cooperation and democratization. What is the significance of cross-ideological cooperation for political liberalization and democratization? What are the conditions and mechanisms of cooperation? Finally, to what extent do Islamists moderate as a result of cooperation?

Social Movement Theory and Patron-Clientelism Islamic Social Institutions and the Middle Class in Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen

This article uses social movement theory to understand the nature and significance of the networks in which Islamic social institutions (ISIs) are embedded, the types of participants, how people participate, and the extensiveness of that participation. In particular, it examines the horizontal and vertical ties within and associated with Islamic medical clinics in Cairo, the Women’s Committee of the Islah Charitable Society in Yemen, and the Islamic Center Charitable Society in Jordan. It argues that ISIs play an important role not in the vertical recruitment or mobilization of the poor but in the expansion and strengthening of middle-class networks. Vertical patron-client relationships within Islamic institutions are often weak. In contrast, middle-class networks, bringing Islamists and non-Islamists together, are expanded and strengthened via ISIs. The case studies confirm that moderate Islamism is a movement of the marginalized, educated middle class, not of the disenfranchised poor.

Islamism and Family Law Reform in Morocco and Jordan

This article questions why Islamists approved family law reform in Morocco and not in Jordan. The answer entails three inter-related factors: the different relationships Islamists had with their respective monarchs; the strength of leftist parties and their ties to civil society; and how the respective reforms were presented by the two monarchs. This article contributes to a body of literature that argues, while not discounting ideology, that an understanding of Islamist parties requires an examination of the larger political context and Islamist responses to it.

Critical Junctures and Missed Opportunities: The Case of Lebanon's Cedar Revolution

Abstract This article addresses three shortcomings in the path dependency literature on critical junctures: the neglect of negative cases, non-state actors and of power asymmetries. The 2005 Cedar Revolution had the makings of a critical juncture. Yet despite the rise of alternative non-governmental organizations (ANGOs) seeking to change the sectarian political system, a public ready for change, renewed donor interest and funds, little came of this juncture; Lebanons ANGOs are now inactive. This paper questions why. Building on fieldwork conducted between 2006 and 2010, it argues that the Cedar Revolution was a critical juncture and that this critical juncture was marked by a substantial power asymmetry between ANGOs and Lebanons sectarian political actors. Nonetheless, the renewed donor interest in promoting a stable and democratic Lebanon could have reduced this power gap; however, the politics of Western democracy promotion ultimately reinforced the hold of sectarian leaders on Lebanons political scene.

Disappointments and New Directions: Women, Partisanship, and the Regime in Yemen

Young women activists in Yemen today often express a profound disappointment over the process of partisan competition, even as they continue to show a commitment to public service and civic engagement. This undoubtedly stems from nearly two decades of slowly receding rights, as the logic of multiparty competition has led political parties across the political spectrum to articulate an increasingly narrow set of views regarding the public roles of women and to allocate fewer resources to support their female members. This essay details the trajectory of these disappointments and shows how the interrelated processes of encroaching authoritarianism and cross-ideological opposition have come to position women as the objects of partisan debate, while simultaneously limiting their opportunities to directly shape Yemeni politics through partisan institutions. In response to a system that has valued their votes more than their voices, women have increasingly invested their energies in the associational sector, a choice that runs the risk of exacerbating some of the limits that they encounter under prevailing political conditions.

State actor-social movement coalitions and policy-making under authoritarianism: the Moroccan Party of Justice and development in the urban municipality of Kenitra

This article examines the conditions under which state actor-social movement (sasm) coalitions form in policy-making in authoritarian states. Based on a comparison of three cases of policy reform undertaken by the Party of Justice and Development (pjd) in the municipality of Kenitra, Morocco, it argues: 1) in authoritarian states, we must analyse sasm interactions and the interactions between elected state actors and nominated state actors representing the central authorities; 2) the pjd forms coalitions with social movement organizations (smos) depending whether its policy preference is in opposition to the authorities’ and whether it has mass appeal; 3) when its preference conflicts with that of the authorities yet has broad support, the pjd formally mobilizes smos; when it conflicts with the authorities’ preference but has limited appeal, informal party-social movement coalitions are formed; and when it is neither in conflict with the authorities’ preference nor has mass appeal, coalitions are unnecessary.