During the Arab Spring revolutions protestors used mobile communications technology and social media platforms to share information, mobilize supporters, and organize activities to bring about the political transformation of their countries. In each case the drafting of a new constitution was the next step adopted to continue that transformation. We ask whether the digital revolution that powered the overthrow of old regimes during the Arab Spring can also be used to facilitate a similar level of participation in the constitution making process and we present “my.con”, an online platform allowing citizens to collaborate in constitutional drafting.
Recent attempts to promote participatory constitution making in post-authoritarian Arab states have struggled to overcome the limitations imposed by citizens’ lack of familiarity with substantive issues, or the lack of experience of incorporating citizens’ views into deliberations and drafting. Increasingly however these limitations are being overcome by advances in digital communications technology. Today young people get their news from social media and Internet platforms and they are more likely to get political and social information and advice from blogs or microblogs. Globally, Arab youth are the most likely to exchange political views on line. This paper addresses post-conflict constitution making as a key stage in the transition to democracy in the context of the Arab Spring revolutions. It analyses the findings from studies of constitution making practice in post-conflict states and identifies a number of prerequisites for meaningful participation. After reviewing recent developments in mobile communications technology and social media use in the Arab region, the paper presents “my.con” an online platform allowing citizens to participate in different stages of the process and collaborate in constitution drafting.
If meaningful participation is the key to legitimacy in developing and sustaining democratic political systems, what constitutes meaningful participation? For the vast majority of citizens participation was traditionally limited to voting – either to elect a constituent assembly at the beginning of the process, or to endorse or reject the constitution when drafting was completed [20]. Since the end of the Cold War, efforts have been made to broaden participation in the constitution-making process in recognition of the growing importance of popular engagement as a basic right and a source of legitimacy. While there have been some outstanding examples of successful processes, a review of the literature suggests that progress has been uneven. This seems to be partly as a result of the daunting logistical challenges, partly a consequence of poor planning, and sometimes due to a lack of conceptual clarity. A number of prerequisites for meaningful participation are identified. 2.1
Constitution making is participatory if it incorporates opportunities for the broader
public to engage in the process through some combination of oversight, direct input,
and ratification [
The members of the entity responsible for preparing the new constitution can either
be appointed to a commission or elected to a representative assembly [
The draft charter is made public and citizens vote in a referendum to approve the
proposed constitution, usually in a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on the charter as a whole. Since
the early twentieth century public ratification has been the most common form of
public participation in the process of producing a new constitution [20]. The
knowledge that the charter will have to gain the formal approval of the citizenry helps
to ensure that the drafters give due consideration to the expressed interests and
aspirations of the people [
In recent years constitution-making processes have experimented with a growing
range of strategies and methods that seek to educate citizens on the basic elements of
constitutionalism and to survey their views or provide formal opportunities for
consultations with groups representing various political, religious, professional,
economic, cultural, and social interests and rights [21,34,32]. Brandt et al. [
Most processes today use a combination of voting with civic engagement and
outreach to promote popular involvement. Probably the most successful participatory
constitution-building campaign ever conducted was the South African process that
took place between 1989 and 1996 [
The many ways in which a constitution-making process contributes to the
development of a democratic system are well documented [
In a revolution, those demanding radical change confront the reactionary forces of the old order and seek to replace a political system that does not meet their needs. Many internal conflicts occur when this political system fails to resolve differences between major groups in society. It may be that the old arrangements are no longer acceptable to some groups, or that the regime has taken on new powers and underestimated the depth of popular discontent and frustration. The overthrow of an autocratic regime tends to result in varying degrees of disruption and disorder as newly empowered actors seek to establish the legitimacy of the new political system. System legitimacy is derived from the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society [19]. It is generated from one of three sources - traditional, charismatic, or rational authority, or a mixture of the three Weberian types [35]. The main challenge of transition is to agree on a new system that satisfies the needs of these groups, sufficiently at least to allow the transition to proceed. If the proposed political system or the roadmap to produce the new system is not perceived as adequately accommodating to the claims of the major groups in society, a new crisis of legitimacy may develop during the transition [19]. The challenge for the interim authorities is to ensure the legitimacy of the new political system, its institutions and working arrangements, in the eyes of the major groups in society? 3.2
The legitimacy of political institutions in Arab states tends to be based more on charismatic, strongman leadership or traditional arrangements rather than rational or legal authority (Lewis 2005). The overthrow of the old regimes in the Arab Spring revolutions removed the strongman rulers and sought to replace their political institutions with more rational legal arrangements accountable to the people. The most important challenge they face is how to establish a system that reconciles the demands of major groups with competing claims, historical grievances, questions of authority over particular communities and geographical areas, and issues of representativeness or legitimacy of transitional institutions or arrangements [19].
Proponents of participatory constitution-making point to a growing body of
evidence that popular participation can build consensus among the main political groups
about the type of political system and institutions [
The right to public participation in democratic governance exists in international law, notably in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which establishes minimum obligations for participation in public affairs [21]. In addition, the United Nations Committee on Human Rights has recognized a specific right to participate in constitution making [21]. In the context of a post-authoritarian transition the right to participate goes well beyond the legal dimension: the emotional importance of consulting the people who have fought for their right to decide what type of state and government they want cannot be overstated. Participation in the constitution-making process acknowledges the role they have played and the sacrifices they have made, and gives them the opportunity to build a legitimate new constitutional order. 3.3
A second fundamental question for post-revolutionary Arab countries is how can they
develop the democratic political behavior to sustain the transition? Experience shows
that the violent overthrow of a regime tends to produce a “commandist” political
culture that favors those who have more radical, militant, extreme, unquestioning,
totalistic agendas. These groups tend to be driven by an ideal that fuels a belief in their
monopoly of legitimacy, which is used to justify a lack of willingness to compromise
or moderate demands. The singularity of purpose that inspired their military campaign
against the old regime metastasizes into intolerance of other political forces whose
opposition views are characterized as support for the former regime [
Democracy depends upon having not only the proper political institutions but also
a democratic political culture – the values, attitudes, and perceptions that determine
the way citizens think, believe and behave socially and politically [
Research undertaken by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance (IDEA) in twelve countries emerging from civil conflict or authoritarian
rule suggests that constitution making processes that adopted participatory strategies
and methods contributed to democratic education in societies that had not had
political freedom or the chance to shape the governance of their state in the past. This led
directly to the political empowerment of wide sections of the population and
contributed to constitutions favoring free and fair elections, greater political equality, more
social justice provisions, human rights protections, and stronger accountability
mechanisms [31,22]. This is supported by Ghai and Gali [
Overall, findings and analysis from a range of studies indicate that a participatory
constitution-making process contributes to the transformation of the political culture
by raising people’s expectations through education about their rights and
responsibilities and how they can engage with fellow citizens to bring about changes in
government without resort to violence [
For some scholars the risks of high levels of popular participation outweigh the benefits. Landau [25] cites Bolivia, Venezuela, and Egypt as examples of transitions where participation has created opportunities for powerful individuals and groups to manipulate popular demands, polarize participation and impose authoritarian agendas at a time when institutional order is weak. Other researchers point to experiences where consultation has fuelled unrealistic expectations that cannot be met from states’ limited resources, enshrining unattainable aspirational rights into the constitution, and subsequently failing to deliver on these rights in practice, thereby undermining the credibility of the participation process and jeopardizing the legitimacy of the constitutional order [26]. Nor are outcomes such as legitimacy and commitment as assured as some proponents might suggest: the IDEA study also found that while participatory processes resulted in constitutions enshrining rights for previously marginalized or excluded groups, or include provisions addressing issues of social and economic justice, and accountability “[t]hese provisions did tend to render the adoption and enforcement of the constitutions more controversial, as they were often perceived by the elites as a threat to their power or privilege” [32,22]. Analyzing the high level of participation in the Ugandan process, Moehler [27] concluded that those who had participated actively in the process were no more likely to support the constitution than were other citizens.
Overall, however, there is a large and growing body of research to support the contention that properly constituted popular participation in the making of a democratic constitution serves to legitimize the new political order and to initiate the development of the civic culture that is needed to sustain the transition to democracy. 4
What constitutes meaningful participation by citizens is contentious at the best of
times [
In this section we look at some of the basic requirements for people to be able to understand and engage in constitution making. We then suggest a combination of elements that taken together could constitute a basic formula for meaningful participation in the process. 4.1
For their vote in the constituent assembly election to represent some form of meaningful participation, citizens need to be provided with a basic education on what a constitution is and what they can expect from it, what functions it performs in a democratic state, and how it can help build state institutions that better meet their needs as citizens and solve the governance problems that restrict their political, social and economic development. This education is even more important in countries emerging from authoritarian rule where people are unlikely to be familiar with the concept of constitutional government or understand how a constitution can be used to protect their rights and fundamental freedoms and hold government accountable. Assembly elections and referenda are the most common traditional forms of consultation1 [20]. However unless citizens have some understanding of how a constitution serves to determine their rights and status, the functions and limitations of government, the type of state they live in, and how their vote is likely to influence these provisions, citizens’ participation in any constitution drafting election or referendum is likely to be a tokenistic exercise. 4.2
Deciding whether the provisions are acceptable and should be endorsed implies
having had the opportunity to consider and discuss the alternative options in order to have
formed at an opinion in the first place. Opportunities need to be ensured for citizens to
access impartial information about the range of options to choose between in
designing the constitutional framework – whether in relation to the type of government,
levels of decentralization, executive power and constraints, fundamental rights, etc. –
and their relative merits and drawbacks. Debated in public, the worth of different
options can be seen by the strength of the arguments supporting them rather than
which proposals are supported by the most powerful representative or the largest
number of people [
Providing channels for citizens to communicate their views to the constituent assembly is essential for a participatory process. When citizens vote to elect a representative it is reasonable to expect that there will be some formal process or mechanism to communicate their views on particular issues or provisions to that representative or to the body to which she has been elected. It is also important to note that in many developing countries both professional experts and technocrats come almost exclusively from the more privileged sections of society, the elite class with preferential access to education and the upper echelons of the public service. At a minimum this means they are less inclined to know about or understand the particular problems that arise from systematic exclusion and marginalization. It almost certainly introduces a conservative bias to their approach to policy and social development. It also has an impact on 1 The Comparative Constitutions Project (CCP): Analyzing data on the content of 806 constitutions promulgated between 1789 and 2005 by Ginsburg et al detected a significant trend since the early twentieth century, toward public ratification making it the most common form of public participation in constitution making processes [20].
the public’s perception of democracy: developing a democratic civic culture involves
nurturing a belief on the part of the individual citizen that their participation can have
an impact; that even as a single individual their voice will be heard and at least
considered in the deliberation process, particularly when it coincides with those of others
[
What about special arrangements to solicit feedback from traditionally excluded or
disadvantaged communities or groups in society? Where these groups or communities
have been historically excluded from political participation exclusion becomes
selffulfilling as a result of disaffection and apathy towards the political system. Special
representation measures are needed to eliminate this systematic discrimination [36].
Special group representation measures may also be warranted in a multi-cultural
society where an indigenous community has the right to some form of self-government
[24]. There is a strong case for special arrangements for these groups in the process
[
Going even further, a process that allowed specially convened citizens’ working groups to collaborate in drafting articles about particular issues that were of profound importance to them would be an even more meaningful form of participation. Although some scholars baulk at the prospect of methods that involve direct input from civil society citing “the magnitude of the challenges involved in absorbing public suggestions” or “the challenges of writing-by-committee, much less writing-bynation” [20], it is difficult to accept that the advances made in digital media and communications technology do not offer more collaborative forms of drafting. In her book “Wiki-Government” former U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer Beth Noveck notes that while some activities require technical expertise, professionals, bureaucrats or lawyers do not have a monopoly on expertise: “a person may be expert on wetlands because she possesses professional credentialing. Another person may be an expert because she lives near one […] for every project there is a different kind of expertise, which could be sought” [28]. Allowing members of particular groups, communities or professional bodies to self-select to participate in a drafting group of their choosing is one way. Indeed as Beth Noveck notes “The ability to self-select to participate in the arena of one’s choosing is what makes collaborative democracy egalitarian” [28].
These requirements suggest some basic prerequisites, which – taken together – could
be seen as a formula for meaningful participation in the constitution making process.
They have been treated in varying degrees of detail in various studies of recent
constitution making processes. However, a review of these documents suggests that the key
to this formula is in the interdependence of the different elements [
This section of the paper looks at the rapid growth of Internet and social media use in the Arab Region in recent years and the ways in which Internet and mobile technologies are contributing to unprecedented social networking and activity. Here we pose the fundamental question: can the mobile technology and social media platforms that powered the Arab Spring revolutions also facilitate meaningful participation in the making of new constitutions for these countries? Can they be harnessed to meet the five prerequisites for meaningful participation outlined above? A review of how young people are using Internet and social media in the Arab Region suggests that all of these needs can be met much more effectively through Internet and social media platforms.
A 2013 survey conducted across the Arab Region by the Dubai School of Governance
found that the region had more than 125 million Internet users with an average annual
growth rate close to 30%. The average penetration rate in the region was almost 30
percent while some countries (UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait) reached 50 percent
or above. Even in countries like Morocco, Sudan and Yemen that had significantly
lower penetration rates growth rates were among the highest in the region [
Seventy-one percent of respondents in the Dubai School of Governance survey agree
that online communication has replaced traditional communication, and 85% believe
that social media has enabled their social activity [
Findings from the 2013 DSG survey strongly support the hypothesis that Internet can
provide an important channel for education on the basic principles of democracy and
constitution making, with one person in four taking online educational courses while
one in three take language courses on the Internet [
The use of weblogs or blogs during the Arab Spring revolutions showed the ease with
which young people in the Arab region could share information using social media in
an effort to influence their peer’s opinions and shape their social and political reality.
A 2012 survey of 3,000 Internet users conducted by the Ideation Centre in nine
countries in the Arab Region also suggests that Internet platforms that incorporate
blogging have the potential to play an important role in informing and shaping opinions on
complex concepts related to values and beliefs [30]. This was reinforced by the
finding that almost all religious figures in these countries now provide online guidance
through their own blogs allowing lay people to access different schools of thought
and effectively removing the hierarchical aspect of religious discourse. Seventy
percent of respondents reported using Internet to explore different aspects of religion and
find answers to questions [30]. Responses to the 2013 DSG survey support this
contention with 41% of respondents reporting that they read educational blogs at least
once a day [
Channels for expressing these opinions and communicating with those responsible for preparing the draft charter A 21-nation survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project highlighted the fact that social media users in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Lebanon were much more likely to express their opinions about politics, community issues, and religion. Between 60 and 68% of social media users have posted comments expressing their opinions about politics online. This is up to twice the median (34%) across 20 of the nations surveyed. Similarly while a cross-national median of 46% reported sharing their views about community issues on social media, the figure rises to 82% of users in Tunisia, closely followed by 81% in Lebanon, 80% in Jordan, and 74% Egypt. In the same survey users from 63% of users from a median of 14% reported sharing views about religion on social networking sites – the figures for three of the four Arab Region countries were almost four times higher. Although the majority of Arab Internet users surveyed in the 2012 Ideation Centre study have not used any online platform to participate in government processes many say they would if they were given the opportunity. More than half respondents (56 percent) in postrevolution Egypt said that they would use such a service, compared with 28 percent in Algeria. Interestingly, 43 percent of respondents said they would use such a platform is to give a suggestion, while 39 percent would use it to voice opinions about political or social matters, and 29 percent would use it to compliment the leadership [30]. 6.5
On 9 March 2011, in response to a wave of demonstrations across by the country demanding democratic change, the King of Morocco appointed a commission to draft a new constitution. Moroccan citizens would be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the constitution as a whole at the end of the review process [22]. There were very limited opportunities for meaningful engagement.2 In an effort to promote meaningful participation in the process activists 3 launched the website www.reforme.ma on which they uploaded the entire existing constitution and asked citizens to show their support for – or dissatisfaction with – each article or part of an article in the constitution thereby indicating clearly to the members of the appointed commission exactly where they wanted changes to be made. People were also able to rewrite articles or add new ones. To attract people to the site, Reforme partnered with Facebook groups created by activists and CSOs. Full Facebook and Twitter integration allowed anyone who was a “friend” or “follower” of anyone already commenting 2 The commission was headed by an advisor to the king, as was a consultative body whose role was to liaise between the drafters of the constitution and political parties, labor unions, professional and business associations, NGOs and any individuals interested in making a submission to the new constitution. In a classic example of “participation without power” there was no follow up or debate once the submissions had been made and the members of the consultative body were only shown a written draft of the new constitution the day before the king presented it to the nation in a televised speech [29]. 3 Led by Tarik Nesh Nash.
on the site to see what her friend on Facebook or Twitter opted to “Like” – essentially creating a viral effect.
On the strength of this review it would seem that social media and mobile communications technology have significant potential to overcome the limitations experienced by traditional forms of participation. If this is the case, how would advocates of online participation go about building an Internet platform that delivers the five elements identified in the formula presented above? 7
“My.Con” – Options for Digital Participation This section presents a proposal for an interactive Internet platform that deploys social media tools and applications that have revolutionized the way people learn, communicate, and network to maximize the opportunities for citizens to keep up to date with the process, learn about the issues, seek advice, debate options and share opinions, propose submissions, and collaborate in drafting specific provisions. Each of its main features is designed to address one of the prerequisites in the formula for meaningful participation so that together they constitute a comprehensive online platform for popular participation on an unprecedented level. 7.1
The greatest utility would surely be served by an online notice board that concentrates in one site information about the official constitution-making process and also features all the major news stories about related developments and events as they happen. Ideally this part of the My.Con platform would have a formal link to the constituent assembly secretariat to receive official information on the programme and updates on the work of the assembly and its various committees and sub-committees. In addition to news sourced through RSS feeds the Online Notice Board would engage traditional media to both share relevant news stories and re-broadcast content that has been developed through the platform. This would both ensure a regular flow of relevant news while extending the reach of the platform to citizens who do not have access to Internet. A linked page would provide NGOs with an online platform to publicize their civic awareness and outreach work on the constitution-making process. Information about events such as public debates, conferences, town-hall meetings, training workshops, youth forums, etc. would be solicited from NGOs and published in a calendar of events. Planned events would be shown on an interactive map so that people could see what is going on in their area. This would also allow the constituent assembly and NGOs to see what areas are underserved with civic education activities and take action to organize events for people in these areas. 7.2 The objective of the online education section of the platform is to empower citizens with education about the main constitutional topics and issues so that they can participate meaningfully in the process. A basic education on the key issues would allow people to engage in informed debate, advocate for specific rights and interests, and contribute to decision-making about the future of the state. This section would feature a series of 2-to-3 minute video tutorials introducing basic concepts related to democratic government, constitutions, and the constitution making. The mini-tutorials would be presented by a qualified communicator and illustrated with visual representations using images, graphics, art, etc. to help the viewer remain engaged and better understand the concepts being presented. Users would be able to watch tutorials online (streaming) or download to a device. The download feature is included so that people who do not have access to Internet can also benefit from the tutorial. It also allows the tutorial to be shown to a group – e.g. students in a class or lecture setting, family members at home, NGO staff or members, etc. This function is typically undertaken through workshops or printed material. Working in partnership with universities, secondary schools, NGOs, and traditional media using a carefully designed dissemination strategy would help ensure the tutorials would benefit a broad section of the popular. 7.3
At the heart of the My.Con platform’s online discussion forum is the idea that information or analysis from credible sources helps people form their own opinion about an issue, particularly if the information is accompanied by a discussion or commentary from a range of perspectives. The forum centres on a blog with regular posts that shed light on a constitutional topic or recent development, highlight the main points in a process, or offer useful suggestions about how to improve knowledge or take action. Short posts like “Five Things the Constituent Assembly Needs to Do in Its First Meeting” or “Three Ways You Can Participate in the Constitution Making Process” empower users quickly with information they need to get involved in the process. Readers can also leave comments in an interactive format that acts as a kind of discussion forum. Research suggests that the inclusion of a discussion forum where users can agree or disagree with the position taken in the blog post and write comments contributed significantly to the popularity of many blogs. It also helps inform users’ opinions about the major questions as they arise or the choices that need to be made in relation to specific options in the constitution making process. Expert contributors would also identify the critical questions about the blog theme that would constitute the subjects for the discussion forum, and facilitate an online question and answer session in real time on the issues highlighted in the blog. These sessions would be widely publicised on the blog page and though dedicated platform Facebook and Twitter accounts to attract user participation.
The objective of the “Upload Channel” part of the platform is to mobilize members of the public to record and upload their personal submission - or that of a relative, friend or neighbor - to the constituent assembly. Anyone with access to a smartphone will be able to submit their opinion by recording and uploading a short (30 second) video explaining the priorities to be included in the constitution or addressed by the Drafting Assembly. Uploaded on the constitution making platform, YouTube, and social media these videos become a form of submission to the constituent assembly. Users will be able to select an option to have their submission automatically posted to their Facebook page and shared with their friends, and to be entered in a weekly competition where videos are posted on the platform Facebook page and users vote for their preferred upload. To make it easy for people to record their submissions, a specially designed app providing a one-touch record-and-upload service could be developed and made available for download free-of-charge. This can be a particularly powerful way of giving voice to people who might not otherwise be able to interact with the constituent assembly or submit any proposal to them. At different stages in the process a video-collage could be compiled bringing together the video submissions that best express the views, concerns and aspirations of citizens for the new constitution. Special screenings could also be organized for the assembly both individual videos and the final collage could be widely disseminated through social media, YouTube, television, and traditional media. 7.5
This component of the My.Con platform would engage online teams composed of civil society representatives, interest group advocates, and academic experts in the collaborative drafting of articles using a specially designed wiki. The primary users would be self-selecting experts and representatives of civil society organizations who speak on behalf of a CSO, professional association, NGO, academic body, or group of students. The teams would be structured with set roles assigned according to different types of experience and qualifications matched to key tasks. For example, roles could include facilitator, drafters, advocates, subject specialists, and researchers who review and analyze proposed articles, research, upload, annotate and cross reference relevant articles from other constitutions draft new formulations and submit for review. Inspired by the Peer-to-Patent initiative [28] the forum will make extensive use of a visualization process by which participants can see on their screen the roles they have accepted and tasks they have been assigned. Draft articles could be shared on Facebook and voted on by the public prior to submission to the constituent assembly. This facility could also be used to organize public commentary on individual articles following the publication of a draft constitution prior to referendum. Citizens would be able to identify articles that they did not agree with and propose alternative formulation or provisions, or to vote for the constitution on an article-by-article basis.
Would it work? Constitutional law is a dull subject at the best of times. Would people
make use of a social platform about constitution making? A 2012 Stanford University
study of the impact of social media on social unrest in the Arab Spring countries
could provide the key. Researchers found that “In the hands of civil society members,
the Internet has enormous effects upon protest probability” [
Traditional forms of engagement in constitution-making processes have had limited success in delivering a basic combination of prerequisites for meaningful participation. But Internet and digital communications technology are already overcoming these limitations. Today there are social media platforms that respond directly to the need for information about the process and offer online education about substantive issues; blogs and micro-blogs that provide guidance on contentious issues and options; and any number of new apps that could facilitate consultations with citizens and ensure that the outcomes of these consultations are synthesized and incorporated into deliberations and drafting. Internet and mobile communications technology are fuelling a level of networking and social participation that used to be the stuff of sciencefiction movies. The paper hypothesizes that participation in constitution making can be revolutionized with an online platform that offers information and targeted education features and deploys tailor-designed apps to allow users to express their opinions and communicate them to the official drafting body. A proposal for the design of such a mash-up platform was presented as a model for testing inappropriate constitution making contexts. 10 19. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American political science review, 53(1), 69-105. 20. Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z., & Blount, J. (2009) “Does the Process of Constitution-Making
Matter?” in The Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2009.5:201-223 21. Hart, V. (2003) Democratic Constitution Making (July 2003), USIP Special Report 107, United States Institute of Peace available at http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/ sr107.pdf 22. IDEA (2012) The 2011 Moroccan Constitution: A Critical Analysis. IDEA: Stockholm 23. Klein, C. & Sajo, A. (2012) Constitution-Making: Process and Substance. In Rosenfeld, M & Sajo, A. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press: Oxford 24. Kymlicka, W. (1996) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford University Press: Oxford 25. Landau, D. (2013). Abusive Constitutionalism. UC Davis Law Review, Fall 2013, Forthcoming; FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 646. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2244629 26. Liolos, J. (2013) Erecting New Constitutional Cultures: The Problems And Promise Of Constitutionalism Post-Arab Spring. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review [Vol. 36:1 2013] 27. Moehler, Devra C. (2008) Distrusting Democrats: Outcomes of Participatory Constitution
Making University of Michigan Press: Michigan 28. Noveck, B. (2010) Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful Brookings Institution Press: Washington 29. Ottaway, M. (2011) The Moroccan Constitution: Real Change or More of the Same? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Available at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/06/20/new-moroccan-constitution-real-change-ormore-of-same/ 30. Sabbagh, K., Mourad, M., Kabbara, W., Shehadi, R., & Samman, H. (2012) Understanding the Arab Digital Generation. A report for the Ideation Centre. Booz & Co. Accessed online at http://www.booz.com/media/file/BoozCo_Understanding-the-Arab-Digital-Generation 31. Samuels K. 2006. Constitution Building Processes and Democratization: A Discussion of
Twelve Case Studies. Geneva: IDEA 32. Samuels, K. (2006) ‘Post-Conflict Peace-Building and Constitution-Making’ in Chicago
Journal of International Law Vol. 6 No. 2 33. Tessler, M., Jamal, A., & Robbins, M. (2012) New Findings On Arabs And Democracy. In
Journal of Democracy Volume 23, Number 4 pp. 89-103, October 2012. Baltimore. JHU 34. Voigt, S. (2003) “The Consequences of Popular Participation in Constitutional Choice Towards A Comparative Analysis” in Deliberation And Decision: Economics, Constitutional Theory, And Deliberative Democracy. Anne van Aaken, Christian List, Christoph Lutge, eds., Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003 35. Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society Bedminster Press: New York 36. Young, I. M. (2007) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press: Oxford