Islamic movements under different authoritarian contexts : tolerance, prohibition, and regime's threat perception in Egypt and Turkey
Loading...
Files
Date
Authors
Publisher
Abstract
This dissertation examines why Islamic movements that were tolerated for decades by authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Turkey were suddenly subjected to prohibition, restructuring, or repression. Existing literature often assumes that regimes consistently tolerate Islamic actors because they provide essential welfare services, bolster regime legitimacy, or fill governance gaps. Yet the experiences of al-Jamʿiyya al-Sharʿiyya (Egypt) and the Gülen Movement (Turkey) reveal a more complex trajectory: both movements expanded under state supervision throughout the 1980s–2000s, only to face abrupt and sweeping crackdowns following major political ruptures in 2013 and 2016.
Using a qualitative comparative design grounded in semi-structured interviews and the analysis of primary and secondary sources, the dissertation uncovers how authoritarian regimes reassessed their once-valued Islamic partners when broader political conditions shifted. Despite differences in their organizational identities, al-Jamʿiyya al-Sharʿiyya, as an apolitical charity, and the Gülen Movement, as a more politically embedded network, were ultimately prohibited. Their long-standing provision of social services, deep societal presence, and even periods of close cooperation with the state did not shield them from repression.
The study finds that the decisive factor explaining this reversal is not organizational type, level of political engagement, or depth of patronage ties, but regime perceptions of authoritarian stability. When rulers perceived their own positions as secure, these movements were tolerated, co-opted, or incorporated into governance strategies. Yet, in moments of instability, such as post-Arab Spring uncertainty in Egypt or escalating intra-elite conflict in Turkey, rulers reinterpreted the same movements as autonomous, expansive, and politically threatening. Building on these insights, the dissertation develops the Adaptive Authoritarian Tolerance Framework, which conceptualizes tolerance not as a fixed state-movement equilibrium, but as a fluid, perception-driven boundary that expands or contracts according to shifts in authoritarian stability. The framework emphasizes the bounded rationality of rulers, heightened sensitivity to organizational autonomy, and mobilizational potential during periods of perceived vulnerability. This study contributes to broader debates on authoritarian governance, state–religion relations, and the evolving landscape of Islamic activism in the Middle East.
Review
Metadata
License
This item has been published with the following license: In Copyright