Advanced Search

Justifying power : ruling group dominance and regime justification in multi-ethnic states

Research and Teaching Output of the MIT Community

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Roger Petersen. en_US Berman, Deborah Rachel en_US
dc.contributor.other Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Political Science. en_US
dc.coverage.spatial aw----- en_US 2012-01-30T17:05:54Z 2012-01-30T17:05:54Z 2011 en_US 2011 en_US
dc.description Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Political Science, 2011. en_US
dc.description Cataloged from PDF version of thesis. en_US
dc.description Includes bibliographical references. en_US
dc.description.abstract The current but inconsistent upheaval in the Middle East suggests variations in what will topple regimes, and thus in how regimes have laid the groundwork to remain in power. This thesis examines variation in a social condition, relative dominance of a ruling ethnic group in a multi-ethnic society, as the source for systematic variations in how a mono-ethnic regime will justify its rule to the general population. This thesis argues that the ruling group's relative dominance, defined as its relative percentage to other groups in the population, drives a regime's justifying argument to be either rooted in the presence of universally lauded institutions (democratic-institutional), the regime's demonstrated record of economic and social developmental achievements (economic-social developmental), or the regime's ability to further the interests of an identity common to itself and the population at large (identificational). Relative dominance, it is contended, affects regime behavior by influencing the functioning of two mechanisms: the degree to which a regime can tolerate public accountability and the extent to which it needs to reduce the salience of ethnicity in order to endure. The thesis hypothesizes that the former decreases and the latter increases as dominance decreases. The thesis incorporates quantitative and qualitative analyses to measure and evaluate relationships between relative dominance and justifying arguments. It demonstrates the existence of relationships between dominance and regimes' justifying arguments by means of content analysis of senior leaders' speeches in eight Sunni-dominant, Shi'ite-subordinate countries--Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Case studies of one high-dominance country (the UAE), one medium-dominance (Yemen), one low-dominance (Iraq), and one outlier (Bahrain) then illustrate the speculated mechanisms in action. en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibility by Deborah Rachel Berman. en_US
dc.format.extent 87 p. en_US
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher Massachusetts Institute of Technology en_US
dc.rights M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission. en_US
dc.rights.uri en_US
dc.subject Political Science. en_US
dc.title Justifying power : ruling group dominance and regime justification in multi-ethnic states en_US
dc.title.alternative Ruling group dominance and regime justification in multi-ethnic states en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US S.M. en_US
dc.contributor.department Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Political Science. en_US
dc.identifier.oclc 773928867 en_US

Files in this item

Name Size Format Description
773928867.pdf 7.857Mb PDF Preview, non-printable (open to all)
773928867-MIT.pdf 7.857Mb PDF Full printable version (MIT only)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record