The American University in Cairo School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 The American University in Cairo School of Humanities and Social Sciences Alternative Causes of Civil War Onset – Repression and Signals From External Actors: A Comparative Case Study of Bahrain and Syria A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by Katherine Ann Kassanitz (under the supervision of Dr. Kevin Koehler) April 2016 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………… 4 A. Background of the Problem………………………………………………..4 B. Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………..7 C. Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………….8 D. Overview of Chapters to Come………………………………………...…15 II. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………17 A. Causes of Civil War Onset………………………………………………..18 1. Grievance Theories……………………………………………………19 2. Greed Theories………………………………………………………...20 3. Repression Theories…………………………………………………...23 4. Transnational Factors and Civil ……………………………………33 III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & RESEARCH DESIGN……………….44 A. Why Bahrain and Syria?.............................................................................44 1. Shared Country-Specific Characteristics……………………………...44 2. How these Shared Features Effected their Similar Responses to the Arab Spring Protests…………………………………………………..45 B. Hypotheses………………………………………………………………..49 A. Escalation Theory…………………………………………………….49 B. Signaling Theory……………………………………………………...49 C. Research Design…………………………………………………………..49 IV. BAHRAIN…………………………………………………………………...53 A. Background History………………………………………………………53 B. Timeline of the Uprising – Phase One (February 14 – February 18)……..56 C. Theme of Phase One of the Uprising……………………………………..60 D. Timeline of the Uprising – Phase Two (February 19 – March 15) ………63 E. Theme of Phase Two of the Uprising……………………………………..69 3 F. Timeline of the Uprising – Phase Three (March 16 – April 1)…………...72 G. Theme of Phase Three of the Uprising ………………………………...75 V. SYRIA……………………………………………………………………….80 A. Background History………………………………………………………81 B. Timeline of the Uprising – Pre-Phase (January 29 – March 15) …………83 C. Timeline of the Uprising – Phase One (March 16 – April 7) …………….84 D. Theme of Phase One of the Uprising……………………………………..90 E. Timeline of the Uprising – Phase Two (April 8 – April 24)……………...93 F. Theme of Phase Two of the Uprising …………………………………..97 G. Timeline of Uprising – Phase Three……………………………………...99 H. Theme of Phase Three of the Uprising………………………………….106 VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION……………………………………...110 A. Empirical Findings………………………………………………………110 B. Theoretical Implications…………………………………………………111 C. Recommendations for Future Research………………………………....111 4 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Half a decade has now passed since a series of protests, most commonly referred to as the Arab Spring, erupted across the Middle East and North Africa. In late December 2010, the world watched with anticipation as the beginning of these uprisings started rapidly unfolding in Tunisia after street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself aflame due to his ongoing indignation towards the oppressive actions regularly inflicted upon him by police forces. By resorting to self-immolation, one of the most extreme forms of political expression, he single-handedly drew statewide recognition towards the corrupt policies and injustices of the government. His death was the catalytic force that prompted thousands of Tunisians to take to the street demanding respect, democratic reforms and equal rights for all citizens. This pivotal moment sent sheer panic throughout the entire MENA region n, as other Arab leaders befittingly feared that the infectious contagion of mass mobilization would eventually spread to their own countries, and it most certainly did. The unifying theme that initially linked all the movements together was dissidents’ strong opposition towards longstanding, exploitative authoritarian rule and their intense desires for better social, economic and political rights. Background of the Problem As five years have gone by since the beginning of this historic period where citizens residing in this vicinity of the world actively engaged in protests against their governments, clear observations can finally be made which highlight how the aftermath of these uprisings significantly vary from country to country despite originally stemming from shared grievances that transcended across state borders. The Arab Spring has ended the reign of certain country’s most enduring dictators and ignited widespread violence in others, while a handful of regimes successfully maintained their stronghold on power. This has resulted in a multitude of studies attempting to explain which causal mechanisms are responsible for these divergent outcomes. A common trend that has developed within the academic community has tended to focus on the countries in this region that exhibit several shared characteristics in order to juxtapose them against one another to find the few crucial traits in which they differ. By doing this, scholars aim to directly pinpoint the infinitesimal, but nevertheless substantially important dissimilarities 5 that exist amongst these states that display seemingly identical qualities, as they are then believed to be the explanatory variables needed that can account for the contrasting outcomes of the protest movements. For instance, numerous research inquiries have revolved around trying to understand the reasons why the transition to democracy proved more successful in Tunisia than in Egypt as they each have a shared history of maintaining a secular order, similar population demographics with a Sunni Muslim majority and once the uprisings broke out, the military personnel in both countries each chose to back the protesters whilst abandoning their loyalty to the regime. Also, before the events of late 2010 occurred, it may have appeared to the outside world that Egypt and Tunisia, although well-known autocracies, were at least governed by more liberal constitutions that permitted multiparty elections and bestowed citizens with civil liberties. However, these images portrayed to the international community were merely cosmetic, as those rights were simply overturned by these regimes who then meticulously engineered their consolidation of power over the presidency and ruling parties.1 But now that an ample amount of time has passed since the protest movements erupted, key differences have been identified between the two countries which are thought to be the reasons behind Tunisia’s successful transition to democracy compared to its alleged counterpart, Egypt. The factors that are attributed to these disparate outcomes are the size and the role of the military in each country, in addition to the manner in which the incumbent regimes decided to treat Islamist groups enmeshed within the general public.2 In Tunisia, the military was purposely kept diminutive and frail unlike the highly populous Egyptian army that plays a significant role in society. Also, although both countries banned Islamist organizations from legally assembling, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was given more leeway to publicly gather and vie for seats in parliamentary elections, albeit as independents, whereas in Tunisia the law was strictly abided by and known Islamists 1 Leila Hilal, “Charting Transitions in the Middle East: Lessons Learned from Tunisia and Egypt,” Insight Turkey 14, no. 2 (2012): 2. 2Paul Kubicek and Laura K. Landolt, “Opportunities and Constraints: Comparing Tunisia and Egypt to the Coloured Revolutions,” Democratization 21, no. 6 (2014): 989. 6 were completely suppressed or exiled.3 Therefore, during the transitional period in Egypt after Mubarak stepped down, the Islamists cozied up to the military who were in grave fear of loosing their entrenched role in the economy which prompted SCAF, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, to hijack the constitutional reform process to protect their monetary interests while simultaneously granting the Muslim Brotherhood exemption from the input of the secular oppositionists.4 Whereas the Islamist party in Tunisia, the Ennahda, were more eager and willing to work with civil society in ousting regime loyalists from participating in the process of restructuring the constitution which is cited as the reason why Tunisia has had a more successful transition to democracy than Egypt. Another popular research topic pertains to the uprisings that occurred in Libya and Yemen, as scholars have focused their efforts on making sense of why NATO forces intervened in the former case but were absent in the latter despite all the similar features between these countries as well as their nearly identical responses towards brutally repressing the protest movements that took place within their borders. In both nations, rampant corruption is omnipresent, tribal affiliations are of utmost importance even taking precedence over religious and political propinquities and finally, citizens are presided over by nepotistic governing structures.5 In addition to this, the Libyan and Yemeni armed forces were instructed to blatantly slaughter unarmed citizens believed to be against the regime. But the United Nations Security Council only gave the go-ahead for NATO forces to actively intervene in Libya under the guise of “humanitarian intervention” to help protect civilians. Various speculations have attributed this decision to Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi’s overall unpopularity with a great number of world leaders who were eagerly awaiting his demise. Whereas in Yemen, the Saleh regime