فهرست مطالب jaber ghasemi

ince the beginning of the twentieth century, with the rise of the AKP in Turkey, its foreign policy has undergone major changes, and efforts to dismantle its neighbors and peaceful relations with the world have become the strategic focus of Turkey's diplomatic apparatus. In this regard, reconciliation with Syria was on the agenda of foreign policy, and the two sides established extensive economic cooperation. But after the civil war in Syria, Ankara gradually began to support opponents of Bashar al-Assad's regime and its effects on Turkey's internal sphere. This study seeks to examine the domestic implications of Turkey's foreign policy in Syria using the Boomerang conceptual and conceptual model. The findings of the study show that AKP politicians intensified control and censorship in Turkish society after interfering with Turkish internal affairs, and with the elimination of the voices of dissidents and critics, they sought to expand authoritarianism. In this sense, Turkey not only failed to achieve its goals in Syria, but also faced domestic crises that systematically altered the effects of the boomerang effect on the functioning of the Turkish government and interior.

The government in Egypt appeared fragile during the two periods of the 2011 revolution and the post-revolutionary period, but it survived with a military coup. In 2011, the government condition became incredibly complicated in a short time. This great experience was not instructive for the religious revolutionaries, and like a hasty government, they were soon overthrown by popular protests and military coups. Contrary to expectations, the military was able to form a stable government. Inspired by the descriptive method and the combination of two institutionalism and cultural theories, this study tries to address the important question of why the government appeared fragile in the era of Mubarak and Morsi, but stable in the era of the military? The results show that the experience of economic modernization and liberalization led to the emergence and development of social and political forces. The government, on the other hand, continued to emphasize the traditional discourse of power. This deprived the government of gaining hegemony in the context of civil society and creating institutions for community participation. The inefficiency of the government in the economic field, the lack of cultural hegemony and civil institutions, and repressive attitudes led to the emergence and formation of a pragmatic society. The state in this society became rootless and quickly appeared fragile against the mass movement. The Akhavan's government also failed to eliminate the institutions of power of the previous regime and create new ones, while by imitating Mubarak's policy, it monopolized power so that it could lose the conflict in the street arena and easily collapse. The military took advantage of these opportunities to emerge as a national-historical institution,  satisfy the dominant political forces, and to form a new authority in the form of an "efficient government.

With the rise of the AKP to power in 2002, the country's foreign policy inevitably embarked on a new path based on the two doctrines of "zero tension with neighbors" and "strategic depth." But since 2012, in line with popular uprisings in the region and the Muslim world, Turkey has gradually shifted away from its former foreign policy in the Middle East, increasing its understanding of threats, competing with other regional powers, increasing its use of force, risky behavior, and Prioritizing the policy of unilateralism has been accompanied. This new approach has led to a strong focus on national security, efforts for greater strategic independence, and the militarization of foreign policy. Regarding this development, some researches have emphasized the expansionist approach of neo-Ottomanism, while others consider the Islamic Awakening and the subsequent developments as the cause of the turn of Turkey's foreign policy. Other research looks at the 2016 coup and the rivalry of political elites as the root of this change. The tense environment of society considers the redefinition of Turkey's role in the region and the transformation of power in the international system as the five main and influential components in changing the foreign policy of this country towards the Middle East region. Among the above components, the change in the balance of power at the international and regional levels and the increasing position of Erdoğan himself in the power structure have had the greatest impact on Turkey's Middle East policy.

This study seeks to analyze authoritarianism in Turkey from 2010 to 2020 and seeks to answer the question of what factors have led to the growth and intensification of authoritarianism in Turkey? The government that took power in Turkey in 2002 put Turkey on the path to economic growth, political tolerance, and a policy of zero tension in foreign relations during the early years. But after intervening in Syria and the global economic crisis, which was the main cause of the flow of foreign capital to the country, Turkey faced complex ethnic, security, economic and political crises. In the face of these crises, the Erdogan government ignored all the principles and rules of the game of a developmental and democratic government and suppressed civil society by pulling down the shutters of democracy. This study theorizes the nature of government in Turkey based on the nature of the peripheral state and its connection with the capitalist structure. Although the capitalist peripheral government in Turkey uses the opportunities of capitalist growth in the form of global division of labor, it also has special features in all areas in its relationship with the domestic community and the international system.

The purpose of the present study is to recognize and explain the symbols and doctrines stated by Shaykh Namr to combat against the ruling system in Saudi Arabia. The method of study is descriptive analysis and the research results show that “justice-seeking”, “anti-authoritarianism”, “political and religious authority (Marja’īyat)”, “uprising and combat”, and “rule of law” are six main symbols in the writings and speeches of Shaykh Namr. By raising these six symbols, he has recognized them as essential to bring transformation and reform in the political structure of Saudi Arabia and establish a government based on equality and brotherhood.