Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.801139
Title: Constitution-making and democratization : a comparative analysis of Tunisia and Egypt after the 2010/11 uprisings
Author: Jermanová, Tereza
Awarding Body: University of Warwick
Current Institution: University of Warwick
Date of Award: 2018
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Thesis embargoed until 02 May 2021
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
The adoption of a new constitution following the removal of an autocrat is an important step towards the establishment of a democratic regime. While many factors can influence whether the new constitution is broadly accepted by political parties or not, international actors involved in democracy promotion and peace-building have consistently emphasized the importance of crafting inclusive constitution-making processes. However, so far, little systematic evidence has been gathered to prove that constitution-making design matters. The main question of this thesis, therefore, is: Does inclusive constitution-making design help to foster agreement on a constitution during democratization, and if so, how? This contains two sub-questions: (1) Does the difference in constitution-making design help to explain why political parties of the anti-authoritarian coalitions disagreed on the constitution in Egypt, while they reached agreement in Tunisia, after the 2010/11 uprisings?; (2) Why do some countries adopt a design that is inclusive and others do not? This thesis draws on democratization and constitution-making scholarship to inform an investigation into these questions. Its main theoretical contribution lies in bringing together perspectives from scholarly traditions that have rarely crossed paths. The empirical contribution of this thesis is that it presents original primary material, including close to 60 semi-structured interviews conducted in Cairo, Tunis, and Prague between 2014 and 2017. Combining a comparison of two similar cases of constitutional change in the midst of democratization, Egypt and Tunisia, with a within-case analysis, the thesis moderates the claim that constitution-making design matters. It argues that inclusive design can function as a safeguard against a situation where a constitution is fashioned by a temporary majority. Yet, inclusive procedures, of themselves, cannot guarantee that the constitution will be embraced across political divides, while the intrinsic problem of endogeneity further calls into question the weight attached to the design-based explanation. Finally, the thesis develops and applies conceptual tools which help to distinguish between two forms of inclusiveness which previously have been only broadly outlined in theoretical accounts of constitution-making, shedding light on different mechanisms through which they impact on constitutional agreement.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: University of Warwick ; American Political Science Association ; Carnegie Corporation of New York
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.801139  DOI: Not available
Keywords: JQ Political institutions (Asia, Africa, Australia, Pacific Area, etc.)
Share: