The Domestic Democratic Peace in the Middle East

The democratic peace theory has two complementary variants regarding intrastate conflicts: the “democratic civil peace” thesis sees democratic regimes as pacifying internal tensions; the “anocratic war” thesis submits that due to nationalism, democratizing regimes breed internal violence. This paper statistically tests the two propositions in the context of the contemporary Middle East and North Africa (MENA). We show that a MENA democracy makes a country more prone to both the onset and incidence of civil war, even if democracy is controlled for, and that the more democratic a MENA state is, the more likely it is to experience violent intrastate strife. Interestingly, anocracies do not seem to be predisposed to civil war, either worldwide or in MENA. Looking for causality beyond correlation, we suggest that “democratizing nationalism” might be a long-term prerequisite for peace and democracy, not just an immediate hindrance. We also advise complementing current research on intrastate and interstate clashes with the study of intercommunal conflicts and the democratic features of non-state polities

We the Peoples? The Birth and Death of Self-Determination

This paper traces the discourse of self determination, its rise and possible demise. Self-determination evolved in three phases. The concept emerged from the intra-socialist debate on how to reconcile socialism and nationalism. The Bolshevik Revolution subsequently transformed this ideological debate into a ¿speech-act,¿ an act predicated, practically and ethically, on a specific speech. The concept was then universalized by Western diplomacy. Drawing on both content and discourse analysis, the author argues that while self-determination as a political concept is still alive, as a universal speech-act it may be dying. Three trends undermine self-determination¿s ideal of duality (pertaining to both the individual and the collective) and mutuality (for the self as well as for others): (1) overshadowing the self-determination of peoples with the other-determination of states; (2) increasingly excluding non- colonized and ethnic peoples from the realm of eligible groups; (3) defending existing states while denying statehood to stateless peoples, due to both globalization and the rising emphasis on the state¿s functions, to protect and to represent, as prerequisites for self-determination. The author concludes by suggesting that self- determination may be gradually developing to focus less on advancing new polities and more on justifying existing ones

“Small Peoples”: The Existential Uncertainty of Ethnonational Communities

This exploratory paper attempts to extend the boundaries of research on the “smallness” of polities. It introduces the concept of “small peoples,” a term coined by Czech author Milan Kundera to denote communities that lack a “sense of an eternal past and future.” The paper posits “small peoples” as ethnic communities characterized by prolonged and deep-rooted uncertainty regarding their own existence. I argue that in modern times, “small peoples” doubt the validity of their past-based ethnic identity and the viability of their future-driven national polity. Empirically, I analyze two distinct “small peoples”—Israeli Jews and French Canadians (Québécois)—and argue that while the former have been more concerned with the future survival of their polity, the latter have been more concerned with insecurity about their identity. The paper suggests that a focus on communities and their intersubjective processes can enrich the study of states and their objective state