| Using Jordan and Egypt as case studies, this dissertation develops a model for understanding democratization in the Middle East and its impact on foreign policy. In contrast to studies emphasizing bottom-up transitions, democratization in the Middle East should be understood as a strategy designed to secure the position and power of the ruling regime---a strategy I term democratization-as-control. Although there were variations, the basic features of this strategy included the controlled re-legalization of political parties, competitive elections to dependent parliaments, limited liberalization of the press, and attempts at explicit agreements (in the form of national pacts or dialogues) in which greater political freedoms were exchanged for acceptance of the regime's right to rule. These tactics funneled political contestation into regime-dominated forums and created strong incentives for the wide range of political contenders to play by the regime-defined rules of the game.; In turn, democratization-as-control had significant consequences for foreign policy. The predominant models of realism and leadership personality do not capture the intensely political nature of foreign policy in the Middle East. Weak political institutionalization, the permeability of Arab states to transnational ideologies, and tenuous domestic legitimacy meant that leaders faced multifaceted threats to their continued rule. The domestic vulnerability of Arab regimes constrained their decision-making latitude and compelled them to seek support through nationalistic foreign policies. By enhancing regime security, democratization-as-control allowed leaders to insulate foreign policy decision making from domestic constraints.; A particular focus of this study is on the domestic politics of war and peace in the region. This research offers an important corrective to the current literature, which posits that democratization increases the likelihood of war. The impact of democratization on war and peace is contingent upon the nature of the political transition and whether democratization is a societally-induced process or a regime-initiated strategy. Democratization has not made Middle Eastern states more war prone. In fact, because it bolstered regime security, democratization-as-control alleviated the need for some leaders to espouse hostile nationalism and provided the domestic confidence necessary to pursue the controversial path of conflict resolution. |
