Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-16994House OversightOther

Academic analysis of political order in Egypt citing Huntington

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #023472
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage is a scholarly commentary on political theory with no specific allegations, names, transactions, or actionable leads involving powerful actors. It offers no novel or controversial informat Discusses Huntington's theory on political instability and crony capitalism References the Arab Spring context (Tunisia, Egypt) in 2011 No mention of specific individuals, financial flows, or miscond

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

political-scienceacademic-literatureegyptarab-springhouse-oversight
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Article 3. The American Interest Political Order in Egypt Francis Fukuyama May - June 2011 -- While academic political science has not had much to tell policymakers of late, there is one book that stands out as being singularly relevant to the events currently unfolding in Tunisia, Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries: Samuel Huntington’s Political Order in Changing Societies, first published over forty years ago.1 Huntington was one of the last social scientists to try to understand the linkages between political, economic and social change in a comprehensive way, and the weakness of subsequent efforts to maintain this kind of large perspective is one reason we have such difficulties, intellectually and in policy terms, in keeping up with our contemporary world. Huntington, observing the high levels of political instability plaguing countries in the developing world during the 1950s and 1960s, noted that increasing levels of economic and social development often led to coups, revolutions and military takeovers rather than a smooth transition to modern liberal democracy. The reason, he pointed out, was the gap that appeared between the hopes and expectations of newly mobilized, educated and economically empowered people on the one hand, and the existing political system, which did not offer them an institutionalized mechanism for political participation, on the other. He might have added that such poorly institutionalized regimes are also often subject to crony capitalism, which fails to provide jobs and incomes to the newly educated middle class. Attacks against the existing political order, he noted, are seldom driven by the poorest of the poor; they instead tend to be led by rising middle classes who are frustrated by the lack of political and economic opportunity—a

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.