A Grand Delusion: Democracy and Economic Reform in Egypt. Eberhard Kienle. London: I.B. Tauris, 2001, pp. 274. £14.95
A Grand Delusion: Democracy and Economic Reform in Egypt. Eberhard Kienle. London: I.B. Tauris, 2001, pp. 274. £14.95
复制标题
《大错觉：埃及的民主与经济改革》，Eberhard Kienle，伦敦：I.B. Tauris，2001 年，第 274 页。 14.95 英镑。
DOI：
10.1093/survival/44.1.181
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
E. Murphy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Murphy
经济改革和民主化之间的因果关系一直是当代关于发展中经济体的辩论的核心。中东地区是最没有证据表明经济自由化与某种不可避免的政治相关性的地区。考虑到一些中东国家在过去30年的大部分时间里一直试图扩大市场在指导国内经济活动中的作用，并且在过去20年里，这已经成为该地区公认的发展模式，令人沮丧的是，几乎没有证据表明任何真正的代表性政府形式作为无意的副产品或公认的理想过程而出现。这并不是说该地区的政府没有适当的民主语言和话语。事实上，如果语言是真的，该地区现在已经超过西欧成为民主政府的典范。埃及，这个将infitah或“经济开放”概念引入该地区的国家，在许多方面都是最相关的案例研究，Kienle的书对此进行了令人钦佩的讨论。他考察了当代埃及的政治历史，批评那些假设向民主过渡的解释，尽管中断，停滞或受阻。因此，虽然经济改革进程是研究的基础，但它不是工作的重点。相反，Kienle专注于评估20世纪90年代关键时期国内政治环境相对自由主义（或非自由主义）的波动，当时公开承诺民主伴随着认真追求经济改革。积极自由的区别（自由）和消极自由（自由），他追溯了国家和公民社会之间不断演变的关系，以可预见但必要的重点放在选举立法和实践上（包括与政党的组织和管理有关的方面）、司法制度、私人自愿协会和关键的人权问题，媒体自由和伊斯兰政治表达。Kienle显然很好地利用了在埃及的长期实地考察。他熟悉各种语言的原始材料，他富有洞察力的采访和他将具体的经验细节与更广泛的理论辩论联系起来的能力使这部作品具有说服力。这将是最后一章，然而，最彻底地参与学术界。他揭穿了他所谓的“埃及官方话语”，这个国家的许多知识分子非政权精英所共有的：民主稳步发展的主张。事实上，他认为，对于大多数人来说，现实是一种渐进的民主化，自由的扩张只影响到政权内部或政权一边的少数人。这种审议不能仅仅归因于一个否则假设的过渡的拖延。Kienle认为，现代埃及历史显示出一种在威权主义程度之间摇摆的趋势，伴随着周期性的去自由化和重新自由化。没有证据表明，最近一次的协商化只是对这种周期性模式的肯定。对Kienle来说，埃及民主化周期性破裂的既定观念是无益的。相反，这些“断裂”需要在连续性的内容中进行检查，如果要理解整个系统的话。他认为，独裁统治是埃及现代历史的一个不变的特征，尽管该制度的自由主义/非自由主义有所不同。现在可能发生的事...
The causal linkages between economic reform and democratisation have been at the heart of contemporary debates about developing economies. The Middle East is the region providing the least evidence for some kind of inevitable political correlate to economic liberalisation. Given that some Middle Eastern countries have been attempting to expand the role of the market in directing domestic economic activity for the best part of 30 years, and that it has been a regionally acknowledged formula for development for the last two decades, there is depressingly little proof of any genuinely representative form of government emerging as either an inadvertent byproduct or a recognised and desirable process. That is not to say that the region’s governments have failed to appropriate the language and discourse of democracy. Indeed, if words were anything to go by, the region would have by now outstripped Western Europe as a model for democratic government. Egypt, the country that introduced the concept of infitah, or ‘economic opening’to the region, is in many ways the most pertinent case-study of all and Kienle’s book addresses it admirably. He examines contemporary Egyptian political history, critiquing those interpretations that have assumed a transition to democracy, albeit interrupted, stalled or obstructed. Thus, although the economic reform process is fundamental to the study, it is not the focus of the work. Instead, Kienle concentrates on assessing the fluctuations in the relative liberalism (or illiberalism) of the domestic political environment over the critical period of the 1990s, when public commitments to democracy were accompanied by the serious pursuit of economic reform. Distinguishing between positive liberties (freedoms to do) and negative liberties (freedoms from), he traces the evolving relationship between the state and civil society, with a predictable but necessary focus on electoral legislation and practice (including aspects pertaining to the organisation and regulation of political parties), the judicial system, private voluntary associations and the key issues of human rights, media freedoms and Islamic political expression. Kienle clearly made excellent use of an extended period of fieldwork in Egypt. His familiarity with source material in a variety of languages, his insightful interviewing and his ability to link specific empirical details to broader theoretical debates give the work persuasive credibility. It will be the last chapter, however, that most thoroughly engages the academic community. He debunks what he terms ‘the official Egyptian discourse’, shared by of many of the country’s intellectual non-regime élites: the claim of steady progress towards democracy. Indeed, he argues that the reality has been a progressive deliberalisation for most of the population, with the expansion of liberties only affecting a select minority within, or at the side of, the regime. This deliberalisation cannot merely be attributed to a stalling of an otherwise-assumed transition. Kienle argues that modern Egyptian history has shown a tendency to oscillate between degrees of authoritarianism, with periodic de-liberalisations and reliberalisations. There is no evidence to suggest that the latest episode of deliberalisation is anything other than an affirmation of this cyclical pattern. For Kienle, established notions of periodically ruptured democratisation in Egypt are unhelpful. Rather, these ‘ruptures’ need to be examined within the content of the continuities, if the system as a whole is to be understood. Authoritarian rule, he argues, has been a constant feature of Egyptian modern history, although the liberalism/illiberalism of the system has varied. What may be happening now …