Comparative Politics of the Middle East

ARST-625
Center for Contemporary Arab Studies
School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University
Spring 2020

Instructor Dr Daniel Neep

Assistant Professor in Arab Politics
Center for Contemporary Arab Studies
dn230@georgetown.edu

Class Wednesday 3.30-6.00pm, Walsh 396

Office Hours Tuesdays and Wednesdays 2-3pm, ICC149

________________________________________________________________

What explains the 2010s uprisings in the Arab world and their very different outcomes? How did
Syria’s Hafiz al-Asad stay in power for so long? Why hasn’t economic liberalization led to political
reform in Egypt? Why do citizens bother going to the ballot box in authoritarian regimes? What
impact does oil have on politics in Saudi Arabia? Is sectarian violence caused by religious
intolerance, or are there other reasons? Can tribes be considered part of civil society in Jordan? How
exceptional is the phenomenon of Islamic State? How and why do ordinary people revolt against
authoritarianism in the Middle East?

This course seeks to address questions such as these by introducing students to political science
debates on the Middle East and North Africa and, more specifically, comparative approaches to the
region’s politics. Students will become familiar with the empirical characteristics of politics in the
Middle East and North Africa, as well as the major concepts and theories with which political
scientists seek to understand the region. By adopting a critical approach to phenomena such as the
state, nationalism, ethnicity, religion, and popular uprisings, the course seeks to explain Middle East
politics with reference to its underlying social dynamics.

Themes addressed in the course change from year to year, but may include: state formation;
nationalism; authoritarianism; the communal politics of religion, sect, and ethnicity; civil-military
relations; economic and political reform; social movements; civil society; networks and informal
politics; and the politics of revolution and popular protest.

Each seminar focuses on particular case studies as a means to examine key concepts and theories in
political science, allowing you to expand your empirical knowledge of the Middle East as well as
your knowledge of debates in the field. However, you may choose which part of the Middle East and
North Africa to focus on in your assignments, so have the option of developing your expertise in
particular countries of interest.

1
Seminar Schedule

Topic Date

1. Introduction Jan 15

2. State Formation Jan 22

3. Nationalism Jan 29

4. Authoritarianism Feb 5

5. Liberalization Feb 12

6. Elections Feb 19

7. Rentier States Feb 26

8. Inclusion/Moderation Mar 4

Spring break – no class Mar 11

9. The Islamic State Mar 18

Writing week – no class Mar 25

10. Sectarianism I Apr 1

11. Sectarianism II Apr 8

12. Revolutions Apr 15

13. Uprisings Apr 22

Assignments Length Weight Deadline

Proposal for research paper 500 words 5% 5pm, Feb 17th

Draft literature review 2000 words 10% 5pm, Mar 16th
Draft empirical analysis 3000 words 10% 5pm, Apr 6th
Peer review of empirical analysis 500-1000 wds 5% 5pm, Apr 13th
Final research paper 6000 words 40% 5pm, May 1th

Presentation 10-15 mins 10%

Discussant 5 minutes 5%
Class participation N/A 15%

2
Course Objectives
________________________________________________________________
This course aims to:

• provide you with a broad overview of key historical developments in the politics of the
Middle East;
• help you acquire a more detailed knowledge of the politics of a smaller number of countries
that are of particular interest to you;
• introduce you to key conceptual debates in political science that are relevant to the study of
Middle East politics;
• encourage you to develop a critical appreciation of the benefits and shortcomings of theories,
concepts, and categories from political science when applied to the study of the Middle East;
• provide opportunities for you to improve your skills at conducting independent research,
understanding and critiquing complex arguments, analytical reasoning, academic writing, and
working independently or with a team to present your arguments verbally. These transferable
skills will benefit you in other courses on your MA programme as well as in the non-
academic world.

Seminars
________________________________________________________________
Our weekly seminar gives you the opportunity to clarify and develop the results of your own reading
and reflection through discussion and debate with others. You should use the seminar, among other
things, to:

• Clarify anything you have read or heard which you do not understand. Don’t be afraid to raise
questions which seem really basic or simple – they’re often the most important ones, which are helpful
for everyone to discuss;

• Try out ideas and interpretations that may have occurred to you during your reading;

• Co-operate with other seminar members in deliberating the key issues for each week’s topic.

Friendly, lively seminar discussions are the most stimulating environment in which to get to grips with
the content of the course. It’s natural to feel shy at first in a group of new people. The best way to
overcome this is to be as active as possible right from the start. The more you put into seminar
discussions, the more you (and everyone else) will get out of them.

Format

Each class will begin with a 10-15 minute student presentation that addresses the seminar question
given for that week. There may be 1 or 2 Presenters, depending on the size of the class. If there are two
of you, you should work together on a joint presentation or else coordinate your presentations. However
even if there are two presenters, both presentations should total no more than 15 minutes maximum.

After the presentation, there will be short interventions (5 minutes) from each Discussant(s) nominated
for that week. The role of the discussant is to consider and respond to how the presenter has gone about
answering the seminar question as a prelude to fuller discussion by the whole class. To make the job of

3
the Discussant easier, Presenters should give a brief (one-page) outline of their presentation to their
Discussants 24 hours in advance of the seminar. (Ensure you exchange email addresses!)

Presenters and discussants should ensure they have read and understood all the items on that week’s
Required Reading list. However, presenters should not attempt to summarize the readings. Instead, you
should use these readings to inform your answer to the seminar question.

The remainder of the class will be devoted to group discussion and other activities. Discussion will very
much focus on the Required Readings. All participants in the class should ensure they have read the
Required Readings thoroughly each week.

Office Hours
___________________________________________________________________________

Office hours provide you with an opportunity to discuss assignments, ask for reading suggestions, or
request further guidance on issues of the course. They also make room for a useful one-to-one
conversation about your work, so please do make the most of this opportunity.

I hold office hours twice a week, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 2-3pm. A regular appointment
slot is 10 minutes; if you need longer then you can sign up for two consecutive slots (but please be
considerate of your fellow students!). If I am still discussing work with the student before you, please
be patient.

If you are unable to attend my regular office hours (e.g. because you have conflicting classes), please
email me to request an alternative appointment.

Email Policy
___________________________________________________________________________

In general, your academic work will benefit more from a face-to-face discussion than an
exchange of emails. Academic study can be isolating, and it’s always good to talk through things
in person.

As a general rule, you should feel free to email me if your question can be answered by yes or no,
or if you’re asking for further reading suggestions. If your question requires a longer response, or
one that requires a bit of thinking, please drop by during my office hours so we can discuss it in
person. We can cover a lot more ground, in more detail, when we meet face-to-face because I talk
more quickly than I type. Therefore, please use my office hours to discuss issues arising in class
or from your reading and research.

Classroom Policy
___________________________________________________________________________

Please arrive punctually, a few minutes before the class is scheduled to start. There is no eating in
class, but you are welcome to bring a drink (of the non-alcoholic variety).

Please turn off and do not use mobile phones. Also, please keep your use of laptops and tablets
to a minimum during class (we’ll discuss the reasons for this at the first seminar).

4
Attendance
___________________________________________________________________________

Attendance at seminars is compulsory. You are expected to attend each week of the course without
fail. Students who do not attend class regularly will damage their grade for class participation, which
is worth 15% of the final grade.

HOWEVER: do not come to class if you have an illness that may be contagious. Even the
common cold is easily transmitted in the campus environment. If you are sneezing and coughing,
please do not come to class and pass it on to the rest of us! One-off absences due to illness will not
lower your final grade. Please just email me to let me know.

Absences for any other reason - whether or not you inform me first - will be taken into account
when determining your class participation grade.

Assessment
___________________________________________________________________________

Written guidelines for your final paper can be found in Appendix 1 of this syllabus.

Guidelines for the research proposal, literature review, empirical analysis, and peer review will be
provided in class.

Deadlines

Hard copies of your research proposal and literature review should be submitted to my office at
CCAS (please slide them under the door). I will collect the essays at 5pm on the day of the deadline. If
you are off-campus on the day of the deadline, you should plan to submit your paper in advance of
that day. Otherwise, you may like to ask a kind fellow classmate to print and submit your paper for
you.

Your empirical discussion and final paper should both be submitted via Canvas. Please also email
me a copy as a back-up.

Papers should be within 10% (+ or -) of the specified word limit. Essays more than 10% over or under
the word limit will be penalized by one partial grade (e.g. an A grade will be downgraded to A-; a
passing grade of B- will be downgraded to a failing grade of F).

Papers that submitted after the deadline will be automatically penalized by one partial grade (e.g. A to
A-; A- to B+; B+ to B, etc). For each additional 24 hours that the paper is late, a further penalty of 1
numerical mark will be imposed.

I do not offer extensions for assignments unless there are serious grounds (illness, bereavement,
family problems, etc). In this case, please contact me to discuss as early as possible.

Format

When writing assignments, you should:

• Complete and attach a Cover Sheet from the course Canvas website
• Use Times New Roman, font size 12

5
 • Use double (or 1.5) spacing
• Leave adequate margins (the ‘normal’ template for margins layout in Microsoft Word, for example)
• Leave a line between paragraphs for me to write comments.

Grading

Assignments will be graded on a numerical scale corresponding to the weight of each assignment, i.e.
the midterm is worth 20% of the final grade, so is graded on a scale of 1-20; the presentation is worth
10% of the final grade, so is graded on a scale of 0-10, etc.

The letter grade of your assignment is calculated using this conversion table:

Research Draft Literature Participation Final paper

proposal, review, draft
Discussant, peer empirical
feedback analysis,
presentation
5% 10% 15% 40%
Letter grade
A 5 9-10 14-15 36-40
A- 4 8 13 30-35
B+ 3 7 12 25-29
B 2 6 11 20-24
B- 1 5 10 15-19
F 0 0-4 0-9 0-14

Your final grade will be determined by the total of your numerical grades for all three
assignments. The corresponding letter grade can be determined from the table on the
following page. Please note that a minimum grade of B- is required to pass this course.

Final Grade Conversion Table

Final Letter Grade Combined mark from all

assignments
A 91 - 100
A- 81 - 90
B+ 71 - 80
B 61 – 70
B- 51 - 60
F 0 - 50

6
Plagiarism
________________________________________________________________
Plagiarism (defined as the unacknowledged usage of another person’s ideas or writings) will be dealt
with severely. To avoid accusations of plagiarism, you should familiarize yourself with the norms of
academic referencing. Further information about how to avoid plagiarism can be found at
http://guides.sfsq.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=40484&p=257322

Students on this course are bound by the Georgetown Student Pledge:

In pursuit of the high ideals and rigorous standards of academic life I commit myself to
respect and to uphold the Georgetown University honor system, to be honest in every
academic endeavor, and to conduct myself honorably, as a responsible member of the
Georgetown community as we live and work together.

All students and professors are protected by and enjoy principles of academic freedom. Academic
freedom promotes intellectual honesty and requires respect for the academic rights of others. For
details, see http://facultyhandbook.georgetown.edu/toc/section3

Readings
________________________________________________________________
The readings for each topic are divided into Required Reading and Further Reading.

Please ensure you have read and understood all the Required Reading in preparation for each week’s
seminar. All Required Readings are available electronically on Canvas. This means you have no
excuse not to be prepared.

Discussion will focus on that week’s Required Readings. A good seminar depends on you coming to
class with opinions, questions and arguments about the readings. Don’t just trudge through the text -
think through the material in light of the discussion question. It is likely that you will need to read the
material twice or three times to fully grasp the argument presented in the reading.

3 or sometimes 4 chapters or articles are normally given as Required Reading each week. This usually
equates to 60-80 pages in total. You should plan to devote 4-6 hours to preparing the Required Readings
each week. (You will need to devote more time if you are Presenter or Discussant for that topic).

7
 Seminar Schedule

1. Introduction to Comparative Politics Jan 15

________________________________________________________________

Does the (Western) discipline of political science provide an adequate framework through
which to understand politics and society in the Middle East?

Required Reading

Howard J. Wiarda and Esther M. Skelley, Comparative Politics: Approaches and Issues (Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), pp.15-43 (Ch.2 ‘New Directions in Comparative Politics’).

Daniele Caramani, ‘Introduction to Comparative Politics’ in Daniele Caramani, ed. Comparative

Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. 3rd ed).

Edward Schatz, ‘Ethnographic Immersion and the Study of Politics’ in Edward Schatz, ed. Political
Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2009).

2. State Formation Jan 22

___________________________________________________________________________

How have states in the Middle East been shaped by the legacies of Ottoman, British, and
French rule?

Required Reading

Roger Owen, State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East (London:
Routledge, 2004), pp.1-22.

Kevan Harris, ‘Making and Unmaking in the Greater Middle East’ in New Left Review 101 (2016), pp.
5-34.

Joel S. Migdal, Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and Capacity in the Third
World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp.52-73, 80-89, 93-96.

Nazih Ayubi, Over-Stating the Arab State: Politics and Society in the Middle East (London: I.B.
Tauris, 1995), pp.99-134.

8
3. Nationalism Jan 29
___________________________________________________________________________

How has Arab nationalism affected the consolidation of states in the Middle East and North
Africa?

Required Reading

Roger Owen, State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East (London:
Routledge, 2004), pp.56-72 (Chapter 4 ‘Arab Nationalism, Arab Unity, and the Practice of intra-Arab
state Relations).

Youssef M. Choueiri, “Nationalisms in the Middle East: The Case of Pan-Arabism” in Youssef
Choueiri, ed. A Companion to the History of the Middle East (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2005).

Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001), pp.5-20,
43-61 (Ch. 1 and 3).

Nazih Ayubi, Over-Stating the Arab State: Politics and Society in the Middle East (London: I.B.
Tauris, 1995), pp.135-163 (Ch.4 ‘The Arab State: Territorial or Pan-Arabist?’)

4. Authoritarianism Feb 5
___________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Syria (1970-2000)

Compared to other factors, how important was the coercive apparatus in maintaining the
authoritarian regime in Syria under Hafiz al-Asad?

Required Reading
Roger Owen, State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East (London:
Routledge, 2004), pp.21-38 (Ch.2. ‘The Growth of State Power in the Arab World’).

Eva Bellin, ‘The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in

Comparative Perspective’ in Comparative Politics 36, 2 (2004), pp.139-157.

Raymond Hinnebusch, Syria: Revolution from Above (London: Routledge, 2001), pp.65-88 (Ch.4
“Power and Politics under Asad”).

Lisa Wedeen, Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), pp.1-31 (Ch.1 “Believing in Spectacles”).

9
5. Liberalization Feb 12
___________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Egypt under Mubarak (1981-2011)

What effects did economic liberalization under Mubarak have on political power in Egypt?

Required Reading
Nazih Ayubi, Over-Stating the Arab State: Politics and Society in the Middle East (London: I.B.
Tauris, 1995), pp.329-395 (Ch.10 ‘Economic Liberalisation and Privatisation: Is the Arab State
Contracting?’).

Steven Heydemann, Upgrading Authoritarianism in the Arab World (Washington: Brookings

Institution, 2007).
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2007/10/arabworld/10arabworld.pdf

Hazem Qandil, ‘Why did the Egyptian Middle Class March to Tahrir Square?’ in Mediterranean
Politics 17,2 (2012), pp.197-215.

Eberhard Kienle, “More than a Response to Islamism: The Political Deliberalisation of Egypt in the
1990s” in Middle East Journal 52 (1998), pp.219-235.

6. Elections Feb 19
___________________________________________________________________________

Why do people vote in elections held under authoritarian regimes?

Required Reading
Ellen Lust-Okar, ‘Elections under authoritarianism: Preliminary Lessons from Jordan’ in
Democratization 13,3 (2006), pp.456-471

Jason Brownlee, ‘Executive Elections in the Arab World: When and How Do They Matter?’ in
Comparative Political Studies 44,7 (2011), pp. 807–828

Carolina de Miguel, Amaney A. Jamal, Mark Tessler, ‘Elections in the Arab World: Why Do Citizens
Turn Out?’ in Comparative Political Studies 48,11 (2015), pp.1355-1388

Cilja Harders, “The Informal Social Pact: The State and the Urban Poor in Cairo” in Eberhard Kienle,
ed. Politics from Above, Politics from Below: The Middle East in the Age of Economic Reform
(London: Saqi Books, 2004).

10
7. Inclusion/Moderation Feb 26
__________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Hamas

To what extent does the ‘inclusion-moderation hypothesis’ apply to Hamas?

Required Reading

Jillian Schwedler, Faith in Moderation: Islamist Parties in Jordan and Yemen (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.8-21.

Benedetta Berti, ‘Non-State Actors as Providers of Governance: The Hamas Government in Gaza
between Effective Sovereignty, Centralized Authority, and Resistance’ in Middle East Journal 69,1
(2015), pp.9-31.

Jeroen Gunning, Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence (London: Hurst & Co, 2007),
pp.55-94 (Ch.3 ‘Hamas’ Political Philosophy’).

International Crisis Group, Enter Hamas: The Challenges of Political Integration (ICG Middle East
Briefing, January 2006), pp.1-22.

8. Rentier States Mar 4

___________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Saudi Arabia

How useful is the notion of rentierism in understanding state-society relations in Saudi

Arabia? Consider both potential insights and blindspots.

Required Reading
Roger Owen, State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East (London:
Routledge, 2004), pp.39-55 (Ch. 3. ‘The Growth of State Power in the Arab world under Family
Rule’)

Giacomo Luciani, “Oil and Political Economy in the International Relations of the Middle East” in
Louise Fawcett, ed. International Relations of the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004)

Steffen Hertog, ‘Shaping the Saudi State: Human Agency’s Shifting Role in Rentier State Formation’
in International Journal of Middle East Studies 39 (2007), pp.539–563.

Timothy Mitchell, ‘McJihad: Islam in the U.S. Global Order’ in Social Text 73 20,4 (2002), pp.1-18

11
8. The Islamic State Mar 18
__________________________________________________________________________
Case Study: ISIS

Considered as a state-building project, how exceptional was ISIS?

Required Reading

Paul Staniland, ‘States, Insurgents, and Wartime Political Orders’ in Perspectives in Politics 10,2
(2012) pp.243-264.

Charles C. Caris and Samuel Reynolds, ISIS Governance in Syria (Institute for the Study of War,
2014).

Ariel Ahram, ‘Sexual Violence and the Making of ISIS’ in Survival 57,3 (2015), pp.57-78.

Sarah Birke, ‘How ISIS Rules’ in New York Review of Books (9 December, 2014) at
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/09/how-isis-rules/

Quinn Mecham, ‘How Much of a State is the Islamic State?’ MonkeyCage blog post (5 February
2015) at https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/05/how-much-of-a-state-
is-the-islamic-state/

9. Civil Society Apr 1

___________________________________________________________________________

Case studies: Jordan

What is civil society? Does civil society exist in Jordan - and if so, where is it?

Required Reading

Tim Niblock, ‘Civil Society in the Middle East’ in Youssef Choueiri, ed. A Companion to the History
of the Middle East (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2005).

Quintan Wiktorowicz, ‘Civil Society as Social Control: State Power in Jordan’ in Comparative
Politics 33,1 (2000), pp.43-61.

Janine Clark, Islam, Charity, and Activism: Middle-Class Networks and Social Welfare in Egypt,
Jordan, and Yemen (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004), pp.5-12, 82-114.

Richard T. Antoun, ‘Civil Society, Tribal Process, and Change in Jordan: An Anthropological View’
in International Journal of Middle East Studies, 32,4 (2000), pp. 441- 463.

12
10. Sectarianism I Apr 8
___________________________________________________________________________
Case Study: Iraq

Was the increase in sectarianism in Iraq from 2003 to 2006 a consequence of state collapse?

Required Reading

Eric Davis, “A Sectarian Middle East?” in International Journal of Middle East Studies 40 (2008),
pp.555-558.

William Zartman, ‘Posing the Problem of State Collapse’ in I. William Zartman, ed. Collapsed
States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2005).

Toby Dodge, Iraq: from War to a New Authoritarianism (Routledge, 2013), pp.31-52 (Ch.1
‘Understanding the Drivers of Violence in Iraq’).

International Crisis Group, The Next Iraqi War? Sectarianism and Civil Conflict (2006), pp.1-27.

11. Sectarianism II Apr 8

___________________________________________________________________________

How have the politics of sect been transformed in the wake of the uprisings and counter-
revolutions of the 2010s?

Morten Valbjørn, ‘What's so Sectarian about Sectarian Politics? Identity Politics and Authoritarianism
in a New Middle East’ in Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 19,1 (2019), pp.127-149

Steve Brooke, ‘Sectarianism and Social Conformity: Evidence from Egypt’ in Political Research
Quarterly 70,4 (2017), pp. 848-860

Kevin Mazur, ‘State Networks and Intra-Ethnic Group Variation in the 2011 Syrian Uprising’ in
Comparative Political Studies 52,7 (2019), pp.995-1027.

Madawi al-Rashed, ‘Sectarianism as Counter-Revolution: Saudi Responses to the Arab Spring’ in

Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 11,3 (2011), pp.513- 526.

12. Revolution Apr 15

___________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Iran, 1979

Which analytical framework best explains the Iranian Revolution of 1979?

Required Reading

13
Ervand Abrahamian, ‘The Crowd in the Iranian Revolution’ in Radical History Review 105 (2009),
pp.13-38.

Theda Skocpol, ‘Rentier State and Shi'a Islam in the Iranian Revolution’ in Theory and Society 11,3
(1982), pp.265-283.

Mansoor Moaddel, ‘Ideology as Episodic Discourse: The Case of the Iranian Revolution’ in American
Sociological Review, 57,3 (1992), pp.353-379.

13. Uprisings Apr 22

___________________________________________________________________________

In your opinion, which of the following presents the most promising avenue of inquiry for
studying the Arab uprisings of the 2010s: (i) state weakness; (ii) social movements; (iii)
emotions; or (iv) theories of transition?

Required Reading

Eva Bellin, ‘Reconsidering the Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Lessons from the
Arab Spring’ in Comparative Politics 44, 2 (2012), pp.127–49.

Reinoud Leenders, ‘Social Movement Theory and the Onset of the Popular Uprising in Syria’ in Arab
Studies Quarterly 353 (2013), pp.273-289.

Wendy Pearlman, ‘Emotions and the Micro-foundations of the Arab Uprisings’ in Perspectives on
Politics 11,2 (2013), pp.387-409.

Daniel Brumberg, ‘Theories of Transition’ in Marc Lynch, ed. The Arab Uprisings Explained: New
Contentious Politics in the Middle East (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014).

Appendix 1. Final Paper

Your final assignment will be a 6000-word paper that addresses what you consider to be a key analytical
or empirical issue in the study of the comparative politics of the Middle East and North Africa.

Your paper should include the following sections:

i. Introduction (approximately 500 words): in which you define a specific research

question, explain its significance, justify the cases you have selected to answer
your research question, outline your findings, and state the answer to your research
question.

ii. Conceptual discussion (approx. 2000 words): in which you will review disciplinary or
theoretical debates on the concept or analytical framework that is relevant to your
question.

14
 iii. Empirical discussion (approx. 3000 words): in which you analyze evidence from
your case studies.

iv. Conclusion (approx. 500 words): in which you recap your findings, and explain the
implications of your analysis for our broader understanding of Middle East politics.

v. Bibliography (not included in your word count).

Appendix 2. Presenters and Discussants

Role of the Presenter
A good seminar presentation really helps to get the discussion going. What follows is a framework or
checklist to help you think about what you might include in your presentation. It is not a compulsory
format. Use whatever order of exposition suits the topic - so long as you include the basic ingredients:
definitions, overview of your reading, detailed engagement with some argument, and so on.

However you organize your presentation, remember: the presenter’s role is to stimulate discussion by
presenting an answer to the seminar question. However, there is no need to summarize the week’s
readings!

After you have made your presentation, the Discussant will have 5-10 minutes to respond to your
comments. The job of the Discussant is to engage with your presentation in a way that is both
constructive and positive, not to pick holes in your work. They may query any points in your
presentations that weren’t clear, provide feedback on the persuasiveness of your argument, identify
points in the readings that they understood differently from you, and introduce facts or perspectives
that you may not have had time to mention during your presentation.

In order that the Discussant has time to make a considered response to your presentation, Presenters
should give a one-page outline of their presentation to their Discussants 24 hours before the seminar.
It is the Presenter’s duty to obtain the Discussant’s email address so that this can happen.

1. Definitions and Contextualizing: ‘What are we discussing this week, and why?’
It always helps to begin by giving a clear statement (where possible) of the main intellectual issue which
forms this week’s topic. Say something about its importance for history and politics, and its continuing
significance in the real world of contemporary international affairs. That way, we start by establishing
exactly what we’re talking about, and gain some idea of what is at stake in it.

For example: ‘It is often said that ‘knowledge’ is related to power – but what exactly does this mean?
Does power come from obtaining more knowledge? Or is all knowledge tainted by power? In
postcolonial studies, this debate has largely unfolded in the wake of Edward’s Said’s hugely influential
book, Orientalism, which revolutionized the field. I’m going to outline Said’s basic theories and then
look at how useful they are in understanding how knowledge about colonised societies was elaborated
in Egypt and Algeria....”

You could also use this introductory part to mention either something you particularly liked or disliked
about the readings for this week, or to identify anything you found difficult to understand, so as to flag
it for later discussion.

2. Theories, authors, and so on: ‘How has this topic been addressed in the literature?’

15
Identify two or more leading approaches to the topic, along with the main authors associated with these.
Sometimes these can be organized into a framework - but use other classifications where appropriate.
For example: “Explanations of Imperialism seem to fall into two [or three, or four...] main camps. On
the one hand…”

3. Thesis: ‘What are the arguments for such and such a position?’
You need at some point to reconstruct the argument of a particular writer or group of writers so that we
can ‘get inside’ a particular position or approach, get to grips with it and see how it enables us to make
sense of historical events - or not. For example, “Now let’s have a closer look at what is meant by the
term “colonial power”. In his discussion of British rule in Iraq, Dodge says....”

4. Antithesis: ‘What are the limitations of (or alternatives to) this argument?’
After setting out an intellectual argument in its own terms, we have to assess the criticisms that have
been made of it. For example: ‘There are several aspects of the rise of Arab nationalism which are not
explained by Benedict Anderson’s account…’ Or: ‘Frederick Cooper’s perspective on modernity is
very different from that of Timothy Mitchell…’

5. Weighing of the Arguments, and General Conclusions: ‘What do we make of this?’

Here you might summarize very briefly what the presentation has covered. Then, you should provide a
concise answer to the original question. If you find it difficult to provide a conclusive answer, explain
why. Is the evidence ambiguous? Or are there failings in how the literature approaches the question?
Remember your presentations should no more than 10 minutes.

Role of the Discussant

The role of the discussant is to provide an initial reaction to the presentation that opens up the seminar.
Your job is to consider and respond to how the presenter has gone about answering the seminar
question. Differences of opinion are welcome, but you should also identify the positive elements in the
presentation. You may wish to use the following questions as a guide:

1. Do you agree with the presenter’s assessment of why this topic is important? Have they
adequately situated this question in its historical and political context?

2. Do you agree with the presenter’s characterization of the literature? Do the authors you have
read really fall into the categories used by the presenter?

3. Has the presenter accurately represented the arguments put forward in the literature? Do you
have a different understanding of what author X was saying? Do you agree with the presenter’s
assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the works considered?

4. How well does the presenter use empirical evidence to flesh out the overall argument? What
aspects of the case study confirm or undermine their argument? Have they forgotten any crucial
piece of the puzzle? Have they over-emphasized something you think is not very important in
the scheme of things?

5. Does the presenters’ argument hang together? Is it coherent? Are there any points you wish to
push them on, or any points you think need elaborating further? Is there anything you didn’t
understand?

6. Most importantly: has the presenter answered the seminar question? If not, what do they need
to do in order to answer it?

16
Appendix 3. Grading Criteria

Argument Knowledge and Analytical Skills Engagement with

Understanding the literature

A Captures the Demonstrates an Analyzes and evaluates ideas, Shows evidence of

reader’s exceptional concepts, and facts with extensive
attention right command of both fluency and insight. Develops independent research.
from the start. facts and and sustains a sophisticated Engages with ideas
Incisively concepts. argument, showing elements and debates in that
elaborates and Displays critical of unusual originality and literature in an
contextualizes and sophisticated ambition. Organizes ideas informed and critical
the research engagement with and information logically and manner; may display
question. theory; explores coherently; progresses intellectual
Explains and problematizes smoothly from one point to innovation and
structure of concepts in the next. Presents citations insight that are
paper and relation to and bibliography in unusual at Masters
overall appropriate professional academic style. level. Successfully
argument with empirical cases. Syntax, vocabulary and uses the wider
fluency and Shows a superb, grammar indicate a high level literature to deepen
precision. fine-grained of intellectual maturity. exploration of the
Presents the mastery of research question and
conclusions of evidence. raise the level of
the argument discussion to a new
intriguingly, at level. Shows
the start of the evidence of intensive
paper, tempting reading in both
the reader to disciplinary political
read on and find science and Middle
out more. East Studies;
demonstrates an
accurate and
insightful
understanding of the
debates in both fields
and situates the
discussion within
these broader
debates.
A- Clearly and Demonstrates a Analyzes and evaluates Shows evidence of
concisely states sound, well- concepts and information considerable
the research rounded intelligently. Explores independent research
question. Gives understanding of concepts and empirical data and successfully
sound context facts and thoughtfully, selecting identifies key
and begins to concepts. appropriate relevant academic
explore what is Engages evidence. Develops a contributions.
at stake in appropriately coherent argument and Engages with ideas
debating this with theory; displays a critical approach. and debates in that
question. explores concepts Structures the argument literature in an
Outlines the and applies them logically and coherently; informed and critical
structure of to appropriate reasonably explains manner. Successfully
paper and case studies. progression between points of applies the wider
content of the Displays a strong the argument. Presents literature to the
argument. grasp of both citations and bibliography research question and

17
 Presents broad trends and appropriately. Syntax and case studies under
conclusion of specific detail in grammar are good; style and consideration.
the argument the evidence. vocabulary are appropriate Contextualizes the
clearly at the for formal academic writing. discussion within
start of the relevant debates in
paper. disciplinary political
science as well as
Middle East Studies.
B+ Makes an effort Demonstrates Introduces concepts and Shows evidence of
to explain the familiarity with empirical data, but may independent research,
research relevant facts and discuss the evidence in a though may not have
question, but concepts, but may largely descriptive manner. identified all the
provides only misrepresent or Supports argument with most relevant
limited context. misconstrue the appropriate empirical scholarship on the
May focus on debate or evidence, but may analyze topic. Makes an
particular cases evidence. that evidence disjointedly, or effort to engage with
without linking Engages theory in may have difficulties ideas in the literature;
up to general a limited manner; integrating theory and brings evidence and
debates. attempts to build empirical material. Outlines a insights from the
Provides outline appropriate mostly coherent argument, literature to bear on
of issues the conceptual with evidence of some the research question
paper will frameworks; critical thinking. Shows signs and case studies
discuss at the applies concepts of some logical or substantive under consideration.
start of the to case studies gaps in the analysis. May Engages with work
paper, but with partial offer opinions without in disciplinary
doesn’t explain success. Shows evidence. Presents citations political science as
what it actually familiarity with and bibliography poorly or well as works
says about those broad trends and inconsistently. Syntax and specifically on the
issues. Offers a themes in the grammar are mostly good, Middle East, but may
partial summary empirical but with a few mistakes; style show a limited
of the argument, evidence, but and vocabulary are largely understanding of the
but may be discussion may appropriate for formal broader context of
unclear or lack depth. May academic writing but may these intellectual
confused in overlook include some lapses. debates.
places. important
Conclusion of evidence that
the paper would affect the
unclearly stated. argument.
B Explains the Demonstrates Presents an argument that is Shows some signs of
research limited familiarity entirely or almost entirely independent
question in with relevant descriptive, showing little or research; neglects
vague or limited facts, concepts, no evidence of analysis. relevant scholarship
terms. and theories. Accepts information on the topic. Uses
Introduces little Discusses theory uncritically. Neglects relevant evidence from the
or no context. superficially, if at concepts and theories. literature to answer
May fail to all. Displays a Presents unsubstantiated the research question
outline the limited opinions or normative and to provide
argument and comprehension of evaluations. Lacks sequential empirical data about
structure of the empirical development in the argument, case studies. Fails to
paper, or do so material. Omits which is weak and/or situate the discussion
incoherently. empirical inconsistently structured. within broader
Fails to state the evidence that is Displays serious or extensive debates in
conclusion of relevant to the mistakes in grammar and disciplinary political
the paper. argument. syntax; style and vocabulary science and/or
Middle East Studies.

18
 are inappropriate for a
Masters program.
B- Research Demonstrates Presents an argument that is Shows few signs of
question poorly little familiarity descriptive and lacking independent
explained and with relevant analysis. Accepts information research; neglects
inadequately facts, concepts, uncritically from much relevant
contextualized. and theories. inappropriate or biased scholarship on the
No outline of Theory sources. Neglects concepts topic. Poor use of
the argument inadequately and theories. Presents evidence from the
and structure of discussed. unsubstantiated opinions or literature to answer
the paper. Fails Empirical normative evaluations in the the research question;
to state the discussion places of arguments. Lacks inadequate empirical
conclusion of cursory or structure and development in data about case
the paper. lacking. Omits the argument, which is weak studies. Fails to
significant and/or inconsistent. Displays situate the discussion
evidence that is serious or extensive mistakes within broader
relevant to the in grammar and syntax; style debates.
argument. and vocabulary are
inappropriate for a university
program.

19