Tackling a problem requires mostly, an ability to read it, conceptualize it, represent it, define it, and then applying the necessary mechanisms to solve it. This may sound self-evident except when the problem to be tackled happens to be “complex, “ “ill-structured,” and/or “wicked.” Corruption is one of those kinds of problems. Both in its global and national manifestations it is ill-structured. Where it is structural in nature, endemic and pervasive, it is perhaps even wicked. Qualities of the kind impose modest expectations regarding possibilities of any definitive solution to this insidious phenomenon. If so, it may not suffice to address the problem of corruption using existing categories of law and/or good governance, which overlook the “long-term memory” of the collective and cultural specific dimensions of the subject. Such socio-historical conditions require focusing on the interactive and self-reproducing networks of corruption and attempting to ‘subvert’ that phenomenon’s entire matrix. Concepts such as collective responsibility, collective punishment and sanctions are introduced as relevant categories in the structural, as well as behavioral, subversion of some of the most prevalent aspects of corruption. These concepts may help in the evolving of a new perspective on corruption fighting strategies.
As the geopolitics of the twenty first century proceed to evolve and take shape, most significantly as pursued by the American insular superpower, global implications still remain opaque. Geopolitical theory allows for more transparency as it helps in observing continuities in US strategy and, in forming expectations about changing tactics and policies in the service of its durable strategic international and global concerns. It would further help offer deeper insights into how American decision-makers are likely to think and act in the post-Cold War era, and in explaining, understanding, and possibly reading and predicting U.S policies into the near future. It may then be possible to proceed to assess global implications and reactions of different actors in different regions of the World, particularly the Middle East and the Eurasian Heartland, to U.S constant parameters and changing variables, and perhaps observe early and subtle shifts in policy and political alignments as a result.
This monograph focuses on media and communicative framing within the context of strategy and strategic interaction as articulated by some major thinkers in both fields. It examines how informational virtual space, through a medium of strategic deception, constructs contextual frames or what may be called master frames, with the purpose of re-positioning an audience, through a process of conversion, in ways that elicit dynamics of fragmentary and oppositional social movements in the service of hegemonic geopolitical and security interests. In the process it attempts to shed light on the meaning and consequences of framing as a substantive form of political communication embedded in the indirect approach of war articulated by British strategist Basil Liddell Hart.
Beyond simply being an instrument of propagation and propaganda, media has increasingly evolved into a power and security form of social and political organization. It has become a matter of high politics as it frames and re-frames perceptions, ideas as well as psychological and mental structures along lines that touch upon the very heart of a society’s or a country’s national security structure. To the extent that media and war increasingly come to share symbiotic forms of strategic interaction, a symbiosis of soft power and hard power respectively, what evolves is a dynamic of framing — a scheme of comprehension that shapes the physical as well as mental and psychological boundaries and limitations of a group, audience or collectivity with or without them necessarily being aware of its structural impact. This condition renders media a potential weapon of war in its own right equal in scope and dimension to those of the actual physical or military.
This monograph attempts to provide a conceptualization of Egypt's current predicaments by process-tracing historical critical junctures and sequences of causal mechanisms that contributed to bringing about the January 2011 events. Focusing on the period between the 1952 Revolution led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, until the events of 2011, it traces the developments and changing political and strategic trajectories of the three presidents Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. The case of Egypt is examined here as ‘an instance of a class of events’ focusing on phenomena related to the tracing of causal factors and mechanisms leading to a particular outcome in January 25, 2011. It further links the uprising to that country’s 1979 'Peace Treaty' with Israel. This treaty de-securitized the latter, allowing it significant regional freedom of action, and had a causal effect on challenging Egypt's identity motivated action, contributing in the process to undermining its identity structure. An increasing awareness among many Egyptians of the link between the treaty and their identity formation, is one of the main reasons for summoning the legacy of Nasser as a source of 'ontological security'.
This book compares Islamic and Western political formulations, highlighting areas of agreement and disparity. Building on this analysis, the author goes on to show that political Islam offers a serious alternative to the dominant political system and ideology of the West. Sabet argues that rather than leading to a "Clash of Civlizations" or the assimilation of Islam into the Western system, a positive process of interactive self-reflection between Islam and liberal democracy is the best way forward. Beginning this process, Sabet highlights key concepts of Islamic political thought and brings them into dialogue with Western modernity. The resulting synthesis is essential reading for advanced undergraduate and graduate students of Islamic and Middle Eastern politics, political theory, comparative politics and international relations.
Media has increasingly evolved into a power and security form of social and political organization. It has become a matter of high politics as it frames and re-frames perceptions, ideas as well as, psychological and mental structures, along lines that touch upon the very heart of a society’s or a country’s national security. This renders media a potential weapon of war much in its own right.
This paper focuses on media and communicative framing within the context of strategy and strategic interaction as articulated by some major thinkers in both fields (e.g. Irving Goffman; Basil Liddell Hart). It will examine how informational virtual space, through a medium of strategic deception, constructs contextual frames or what may be called master frames, with the purpose of re-positioning an audience, through a process of conversion, in ways that elicit dynamics of fragmentary and oppositional social movements in the service of hegemonic geopolitical and security interests. In the process it will also attempt to shed light on the meaning and consequences of framing as a substantive form of political communication embedded in the indirect approach of war articulated by British strategist Basil Liddell Hart.
The triumph of the Islamic revolution of Iran in February1979 baffled and continues to baffle many. The introduction of a religious dimension into contemporary politics challenged present day understandings of the human condition in ways that have called into question much of the basic modern premises of secularism. The Revolution tended to be perceived largely in light of the preconceptions and predispositions of observers rather than as something original and unique — sui generis. Many failed to see the Revolution as a phenomenon that is to be understood and comprehended from within its own dynamics and on its own terms, rather than in terms of mere Western social science categories, insightful as they may be. Consequently, varied designations were and continue to be attributed to the Iranian regime ranging from it being a form of anachronistic theocracy, to being pejoratively referred to as the rule of the mullahs or a religious dictatorship.
Yet at the heart of this Islamic phenomenon is a creative theory of government and leadership which sought to tackle the recurring issue of legitimacy and the question of who is entitled to rule