Faith in Moderation

Does political inclusion produce ideological moderation? Schwedler argues that examining political behaviour alone provides insufficient evidence of moderation because it leaves open the possibility that political actors might act as if they are moderate while harbouring radical agendas. Through a comparative study of the Islamic Action Front party in Jordan and the Islah party in Yemen, she argues that the IAF in Jordan has become more moderate through participation in pluralist political processes, while the Islah party has not. The variation is explained in part by internal group organization and decision-making processes, but particularly by the ways in which the IAF has been able to justify its new pluralist practices on Islamic terms while the Islah party has not. Based on nearly four years of field research in Jordan and Yemen, Schwedler contributes both an important theory of ideological moderation and detail about these powerful Islamist political parties.

Author Biography

Jillian Schwedler is Assistant Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland and Chair of the Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), publishers of Middle East Report. She has received awards and fellowships from the Social Science Research Council, the Fulbright Scholars Program, the Council of American Overseas Research Centers, the American Institute for Yemeni Studies, and the Law and Society Association. Dr. Schwedler’s publications include three edited volumes: Toward Civil Society in the Middle East? (1995); Islamist Parties in Jordan (1997); and the award-winning Understanding the Contemporary Middle East, with Deborah J. Gerner (2004). Her articles have appeared in Comparative Politics, Journal of Democracy, SAIS Review of International Affairs, Social Movement Studies, and Middle East Policy, among others.