The purpose of this paper is to understand to the extent strong-weak state dichotomy reinforces coercive power over legitimacy. The paper proposes an analytical perspective to assess what is described as a strong state as opposite to a failed or fragile state. It suggests that, in some empirical cases, the notion of strong state does not necessarily reflect legitimacy but rather, often times, oppression under the claim of maintaining stability and order amongst the citizens. The paper uses Ronald Paris’s theory on Institutionalisation Before Liberalisation (IBL) as one example of liberal peace literature discourse that supports state-centrism. It criticises Paris’s argument of institutionalisation as a mean towards a stable and peaceful state, differentiating between the stability of a state versus the stability of a regime. As an empirical evidence, the paper sheds light on the current status of Egypt under President’s Al-Sisi rule as a case study of how institutionalism reinforces coercion and violence.
The field of International Relations has contributed to the understanding of the notions of strong and weak states especially as an element of peacekeeping on both the intrastate and interstate levels. Strong-weak states literature has been focusing on institutions-building as an indicator for the level of autonomy and good governance the state performs. War-shattered states and Third World countries are presumed to be mostly fragile, due to their lack of efficient institutions that regulate the political, social and economic lives of the citizens. Attempting to address such issue, over the past years the liberal discourse has been developing several models to help build strong states by establishing powerful institutions in those countries through different modes of assistance. One of those models is the Institutionalisation Before Liberalisation developed by Ronald Paris which argues that building strong state institutions is vital for maintaining peace before bringing in democracy.
Table of Contents
Stability at All Costs: The Case of Egypt in Al-Sisi Era
Proposition #1: Promote good civil society
Proposition #2: Control hate speech
Proposition #3: Adopt conflict-reducing economic policies
Conclusion:
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the extent to which the strong-weak state dichotomy in international relations theory reinforces coercive power rather than legitimacy, specifically through the lens of Ronald Paris’s "Institutionalisation Before Liberalisation" (IBL) model. By using Egypt under President Al-Sisi as a case study, the research aims to demonstrate how liberal peacebuilding frameworks can inadvertently consolidate authoritarianism and state-led violence.
- Critique of the "Institutionalisation Before Liberalisation" (IBL) model.
- Analysis of state-society relationships and the suppression of civil society.
- Evaluation of the impact of coercive stability on democratic transition.
- Investigation into how economic policies under authoritarian rule fail to provide sustainable development.
- The relationship between regime survival, state-centric peacebuilding, and human rights violations.
Excerpt from the Book
Stability at All Costs: The Case of Egypt in Al-Sisi Era
Nevertheless, the strong-state literature prioritises stability over legitimacy which has enabled rulers to use coercive means to maintain what they see as a ‘stable’ state. Usually the concept of a strong state is interlinked with a robust state apparatus; meaning that the state/regime has the right to exercise power over its citizens to ensure their protection. Often times this includes using coercive force to maintain the status quo and avert any driving force of change that might bring threat to the de facto ruling regime. Thus, a strong state discourse, adversely or in-adversely, causes coercion and illegitimacy, which in its role leads to structural violence, conflicts, and state failure. Hence, the paper challenges the liberal and neo-liberal understanding of strong states using Egypt as a case study.
The purpose of this paper is to understand to the extent strong-weak state dichotomy reinforces coercive power over legitimacy. The paper proposes an analytical perspective to assess what is described as a strong state as opposite to a failed or fragile state. It suggests that, in some empirical cases, the notion of strong state does not necessarily reflect legitimacy but rather, often times, oppression under the claim of maintaining stability and order amongst the citizens. The paper uses Ronald Paris’s theory on Institutionalisation Before Liberalisation (IBL) as one example of liberal peace literature discourse that supports state-centrism. It criticises Paris’s argument of institutionalisation as a mean towards a stable and peaceful state, differentiating between the stability of a state versus the stability of a regime. As an empirical evidence, the paper sheds light on the current status of Egypt under President’s Al-Sisi rule as a case study of how institutionalism reinforces coercion and violence.
Summary of Chapters
Stability at All Costs: The Case of Egypt in Al-Sisi Era: This chapter introduces the theoretical problem of equating strong state institutions with peace and stability, while setting the stage for an analysis of Egypt as a case study for regime-led coercion.
Proposition #1: Promote good civil society: This chapter critiques the application of Paris's proposition to control civil society, showing how the Egyptian state has utilized it to justify the suppression of NGOs and human rights advocates.
Proposition #2: Control hate speech: This chapter analyzes how the discourse of controlling "hate speech" and propaganda has been weaponized by the Al-Sisi regime to silence political opposition and justify state repression.
Proposition #3: Adopt conflict-reducing economic policies: This chapter examines the failure of state-centric economic strategies in Egypt, arguing that these policies have deepened poverty and increased dependency rather than fostering sustainable growth or stability.
Conclusion: This final section synthesizes the critique, arguing that without a focus on local legitimacy and human rights, state-building efforts risk creating long-term fragility through authoritarian consolidation.
Keywords
International Relations, Strong States, Institutionalisation Before Liberalisation, Egypt, Al-Sisi, Civil Society, Authoritarianism, Coercion, Legitimacy, State-Building, Peacebuilding, Human Rights, Economic Policy, Regime Stability, Democratization.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work?
The work argues that liberal peacebuilding models, which prioritize the creation of strong state institutions before democratization, can be misused by authoritarian regimes to justify coercion and the suppression of human rights under the guise of maintaining stability.
Which specific model does the author critique?
The paper critiques Ronald Paris’s "Institutionalisation Before Liberalisation" (IBL) model, particularly its application as a "one-size-fits-all" blueprint for post-conflict or transitioning states.
What is the primary goal of this research?
The primary goal is to investigate how the "strong vs. weak state" dichotomy in academic discourse can inadvertently reinforce authoritarian power structures and undermine genuine social legitimacy.
What research methodology is employed?
The paper uses a critical analytical approach, combining a literature review of International Relations peacebuilding theories with an empirical case study of the Egyptian political and economic landscape under President Al-Sisi.
How is the main body structured?
The main body evaluates three of Paris's specific propositions—promoting good civil society, controlling hate speech, and adopting conflict-reducing economic policies—and tests them against the reality of current Egyptian governance.
Which concepts define this paper?
Key concepts include state-centric peacebuilding, the legitimacy-stability trade-off, civil society regulation, and the role of the military in the Egyptian economy.
How does the Al-Sisi regime justify its crackdown on NGOs?
The regime utilizes language similar to the IBL model, framing the restrictions as necessary measures to prevent "hate speech," ensure national security, and stop foreign interference in internal political affairs.
Does the author believe strong states are inherently bad?
No, the author acknowledges that strong institutions are important for peace, but stresses that they must be grounded in legitimacy and public consent rather than coercive control and the marginalization of local voices.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Radwa El Sekhily (Autor:in), 2019, Stability at All Costs. The Case of Egypt in Al-Sisi Era, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/496935
