The Effect of International Involvement Across the State Sovereignty Spectrum

This chapter demonstrates the generalizability of the overall theory of international involvement and its societal effects. It looks at the case of Iraqi Kurdistan and Bahrain, both of which lie further on the spectrum of state sovereignty. The chapter examines the role of international involvement, particularly American involvement, in the development and trajectories of these additional cases and provide evidence of the theory's empirical implications outside of Palestine.

De-Mobilizing a Mobilized Society

What impact does authoritarianism have on political mobilization? Despite high levels of mass mobilization in the past, Palestinian society today finds itself polarized and demobilized. Concurrently, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has gained control as a governing apparatus, and has become increasingly authoritarian in nature. But, the PA does not have complete control over the territories; its level of control varies based on the Oslo II/Interim Agreements of 1995. This variation in control (over a homogeneous population) allows us to isolate the effect of authoritarianism on mobilization patterns and social dynamics. Using an original dataset and a qualitative assessment of the PA's historical development, I find that mobilization has declined systematically in places where the Palestinian Authority has more direct control. Counter-intuitively, political mobilization today is actually more prevalent in areas under direct Israeli occupation. Findings suggest the PA has a direct role in this dynamic, using selective cooptation and repression. Overall, authoritarian strategies have inhibited social cohesion, and led to a decreased capacity for mobilization.

Conclusion

This concluding chapter briefly summarizes the findings of the overall book, and outline the contributions of this research to the study of international—domestic linkages and authoritarianism more broadly. It also addresses opportunities for future research on the subject. Finally, it provides analysis and predictions for the future of the Palestinian cause.

The Legacy of Repression

What is the effect of authoritarianism on polarization within society, and how does such polarization affect collective action? The argument of the chapter is that authoritarianism generates rising polarization, which in turn inhibits collective action—particularly against the regime. Specifically, the type of authoritarian strategy matters; exclusionary strategies such as repression generate higher levels of grievance and insularity, making it more difficult for groups to coordinate, than inclusionary strategies such as cooptation. The chapter presents a two-stage theory: arguing, firstly, that particular forms of authoritarianism generate polarization, and, secondly, that polarization subsequently affects social cohesion, and capacity for collective action. Results confirm the theory that authoritarianism, in particular forms, exacerbates polarization within society. This polarization in turn affects the ability and willingness of different segments to coordinate on a common task. In particular, exclusionary strategies such as repression generate greater levels of polarization than inclusionary strategies such as cooptation. Moreover, the qualitative evidence shows that Islamists in the West Bank, the most repressed group, are much more insular and less willing to cooperate with others.

“Americans Have Taught Us: There Is A Difference Between Democracy and Creating Problems”

What effect does international involvement have on individual preferences for democracy? In the case of the Palestinian Authority, this chapter argues that international involvement creates a principle-agent problem between political elites (agent) and the societies they purport to present (principal). When international patrons are involved, political elites are shielded from societal pressures, and orient their decision-making towards the patron rather than society. Coupled with financial and infrastructural assistance, this has the effect of entrenching the regime in an inherently undemocratic manner. The chapter utilizes a mixed-method approach to assess this question. First, the chapter presents interviews with political elites, working within the regime and thus directly targeted by many forms of international involvement. Elites are asked about democracy to assess how external involvement affects their preferences on this subject, given their proximity/relation to the governing apparatus. For the sake of comparison across the state–society line, this study also utilizes a nationally-representative survey with an experimental component. The chapter provides empirical evidence of how international involvement may affect domestic preferences conditionally, depending on where individuals place themselves in relation to the regime. The chapter also provides evidence of a divergence in preferences across the state–society line, as a result of international involvement.

A Theory of International Involvement and its Societal Effects

What is the effect of international involvement on authoritarianism? Moreover, what is the effect of this involvement on societal dynamics, in the long-term? This chapter presents a theory of international involvement and its societal effects, arguing that such involvement not only affects behavior or preferences on the margins, but also restructures regime dynamics and societal interactions in a way that has yet to be examined fully in the political science literature. There is evidence to suggest that such involvement leads to polarization within society, but it is also important to understand the effect of that polarization on political behavior in the long-term. The theory presented argues international involvement has three specific effects: firstly, creating a principle-agent problem between regime and society, thus disrupting state–society relations, secondly, increasing polarization within society, and thirdly, inhibiting political engagement.

Introduction

The Introduction gives an overview of the state of Palestinian politics before and after the Oslo Accords. It sets up the argument of the remainder of the book that international, and particularly American, intervention following the creation of the Palestinian Authority has increased authoritarian conditions in the Palestinian territories, as well as had a divisive effect on Palestinian society and inhibited their ability to mobilize according to their shared interests.