Building: Lionel-Groulx Floor: 3 Room: C-3145
While mainstream Middle Eastern Studies and political science have devoted efforts to examine the distinction between democratic and authoritarian regimes, this panel shifts the focus of analysis on governance dynamics with the objective of problematising such distinction. Recent scholarship (Dabène, Geisser, Massardier 2008; Camau, Massardier 2009; Cavatorta 2010; Teti, Mura 2013) has called for a comparative engagement with governance systems across the world, highlighting how different political regimes are characterised by similar governance dynamics. Established democracies are becoming less ‘democratic’ by implementing undemocratic and illiberal policies such as widespread surveillance, fragmenting their decision-making process into unelected enclaves of co-opted experts and special interests and by restricting the room for open political engagement. Authoritarian regimes ‘upgrade’ and adopt ad hoc liberal institutions, while formally adhering to the ‘good governance’ mantra as imposed by the IMF, the EU and other international organisations. The goal of the panel is twofold. First, we wish to analyse shared patterns of governance in terms of actors and interactions during the policy-making process. Second, we wish to explore the commonalities in the way policy-makers address specific issues and construct ‘subjects’ such as youth or women. Papers shed light on the processes, actors and on the intended and unintended outcomes of governance. More specifically, they disentangle the ‘convergence of governance’ by contrasting governance dynamics from different regions of the world (Middle East and the Gulf, North Africa, Russia, China, South East Asia, Europe) in the areas of anti-terror legislation; government of dissent and the policing of the protests; urban government; and the government of migration and diversity.