Abstract
This paper provides an explicit comparison and contrast of Iran, Turkey, and Israel regarding their political institutions and context. It extracts and critically compares various dominant domains; the political institutions and context, political cultures, civil relations and behavior, and governance system. Besides, it shows the difference in the political science of the nations since they offer a shared type of historical background. The change of compared cultures has enabled this research by providing a platform where individuals with a shared history can be reviewed.
Introduction
In regards to geographic proximity and geopolitical aspects, Turkey, Israel, and Iran have a wide range of political ties, including conflicts. The research of these countries is a topic of great concern that requires detailed review. This comparative paper focuses on the republic of Turkey, the state of Israel, and Iran due to two critical reasons. First, the countries share a common geopolitical location, and, secondly, they have had long-term and historical-political ties. The two reasons above have brought the necessary attention needed to have a shaped and better-understood comparison of the political institution in the three nations. Geopolitical position refers to the Middle East, where the states are located. However, Turkey is not entirely perceived to be in the Middle East. The Middle East is diverse on political science grounds, and alterations of any kind in the region affect the countries positioned in this region geographically.
Besides, the relationship ties among these three nations are another reason to draw attention and interest in matters of political institution understanding. The transformation from the old Ottoman Government system into a modernized newly nation of Turkey, stabilization of Iran, and establishment of the state of Israel with the political values along irrevocable political cultures and behavior are vital and essential elements to consider while comparing and contrasting the states in terms of Political Institutionalism and context. This paper will demonstrate the various diverse domains of political science. In this comparative analysis, a special focus is on the political context and institution, political culture and behavior, system of governance, and the political economies of the three states.
Political Institution; historical background
This section of the paper compares the political system of the three states and seeks to reconcile diverse domains in the complex Middle East region. The validity of the use of comparative aspects in political science is well-grounded; comparative political science is one of the most effective ways of having a better understanding of political contexts. By comparing and contrasting political contexts, people gain meaningful information hence facilitating explanation and interpretation of the experiences in the three states. In the early period of the Middle East, Iranian, Turkish, and Israeli cultures were informed and thus took part in the establishment of various states by acting together. For instance, Iran and Turkey share a common system of governance, the Ottoman system of governance before modernization. The two political cultures were also Islamized; however, the Islamic sects set their paths and diversified. The similarities in culture and system of governance continued, and they became states of their respective Islamic sects. Modern Turkey and Modern Iran share political context in this respect. Iran and Turkey transferred their system of governance from the Ottoman form of the monarchy to constitutionalism. On the other hand, before being recognized as a state, the UN recommended the apportioning of the area into the Jewish and Arab states giving birth to the Israel /Palestine political conflicts.
Political Institution and context; present
From the historical-political background, Iran and Turkey share the most through the adaption of their respective sects. The distinction between these sects forms the key lines of differences in regard to political traditions. Presently, elections are held after a term of five years in Turkey Based on proportional representation and the majority vote. Thus, a party is necessitated to get 10% of the popular vote; if not, the party’s votes are divided among the other parties that attain the verge of 10%. Members of parliament are tasked with nominating a prime minister who is in charge of the dominant party in the Assembly and whose responsibility will be appointing ministers. However, there is a powerful president that makes key government decisions. The general assembly members elect the President to serve a 7-year term. The president is head of the executive as he heads the state and makes certain of constitution implementation and government policies.
The Judiciary arm of the government has a Supreme Court headed by the chief justice as the apex court mandate to pronounce the passed laws as legitimate or illegitimate. Therefore, this necessitates the general assembly to consult the Supreme Court on bills on constitutionalism grounds. In summary, these institutions play a significant role in making key decisions, however liable to the political system in the country and for this reason, secularism comes to play. Turkey is completely a secular society with a complete secular parliament as compared to Israel. Turkey’s government is secular and democratic as in its constitution. Modernization has, however, improved the current circumstance of turkey in regards to political secularism as compared to the previous years and this change on the platform of the ruling party ideologies.
Iran became an Islamic republic after the monarchial system of governance was overthrown in 1979. The Supreme Guide is the most powerful authority in Iran, and largely secular authorities ought to seek his approval in the law-making process. The Supreme Guide controls most assets of the government, including the army, the Bureau of Justice, and the intelligence facilities. Various religious institutions have powerful functions; the expediency council, the council of Guardians, and the assembly of experts. The assembly of experts is tasked to choose an appropriate Supreme Guide and hence facilitates the transfer of power. The Expediency Council, on the other hand, is tasked with analyzing and reviewing the legislation and facilitates smooth integration among the branches of power hence smooth running of the state. The Supreme guide has its president and council who represent the secular law.
Presently, Iran has two conservative and reformative engagements: extremists seek to maintain the prevalence of religion in law legislation and sustenance of a socialist economy. The extremists seek to propagate the Islamic revolution aspect to foreign countries and are largely supported by the working class. Conversely, the conservatives seek a conversation with the extremists on the religious ground. Still, they are favored by the government and have an insignificant intervention of government both economically and politically. The conservatives are supported by the supreme guide and the various religious institutions. Liberals of Iran have much of their focus on human rights. They highlight the significance of human rights and social justice and attempt to reduce the influence of religious law.
Israel and Palestine form fascinating political conflicts in the current world. Foremost, Israel is a democratic state that gives it the supremacy to dictate the political environment. Even though the outdated complexity of the coalition government includes various parties, each of which has its respective religious or rather political ideologies. Israel is governed by a parliamentary through a democratic system that has 120 members assigned based on the national wide proportion illustration. Electorates do not elect political candidates however they vote in a closed list of candidates unwavering by respective parties. A political party that attains more than 2% of the statewide vote is allotted a proportional number of seats in the assembly.
After the assembly’s elections, a president or prime minister is selected as the head of government business who can be a party leader formidable to form a government. The term of a prime minister is four years; however, this can be shortened by a vote of no confidence, and a new government is established to replace the candidate. The Knesset is the legislative arm of the Israeli government. It is mandated to enact laws, oversee government business, and is authorized to remove the head of state. The Knesset is separate from the judicial arm of the government, which includes the religious and secular courts. The judges are civil servants that are obligated to espouse the general law, and the High Court of Justice is the apex court for all courts. The apex court is active and leans towards superior intervention compared to other states.
Civil Relations among Iran, Turkey, and Israel
This section gives the comparison and analysis of civil relations within the political science domain. Over the past decades, Israel, Turkey, and Iran have been strained. However, there have been positive relations presently. Currently, civil relations have been improved especially in regard to civil-military relations. The military plays a significant role in the politics and economics of a country. For instance, Israel and Iran have military interventions with differing consequences for democracy in each instance. There is an open animosity between Israel and Iran. Disparate Israel’s longstanding disagreements with its neighbor countries in the Middle East, Iran and Israel had close ties before the Iranian revolution.
The Islamic republic is viewed with a negative attitude by the Israeli government due to the regime governing it. Issues that touch the Israeli national security are significant and regarded as high profile. Iran’s involvement in acts of terrorism and conventional conflicts in contradiction with Israel has sparked animosity. Nevertheless, it is vital though limited on the variations that exist among the Israeli policy creators in regards to the challenges postured by the Iranian administration and the strategies Israel can use to counter the troubles brought by the regime. There are expressive variances among the mainstream Israeli policyholders about how to create and deal with the nuclear program. There are differences in opinion; however, the spectrum is narrow, and the variation is insignificant. Therefore, there is a need for the states to have a roundtable to discuss their relations.
One of the most momentous developments was the inception of tactical relations between Turkey and Israel. The civil relations between these countries culminated in the late 1990s in a multifaceted liaison that includes the political, cultural, and economic dimensions. These countries’ bilateral relations are up and were on the verge of forming an informal alliance against Iran owing to the fact there are mutual threat acuities. Besides, as a concern of the warming relations between the Turkish and Israeli governments, the citizens of both countries enjoy mutually owned facilities. However, the countries have also had negative developments in their civil relations following the recent storming of an aid flotilla attempting to break the barricade that the Israeli government had imposed on the Hamas-run Gaza. The growing power of turkey and its security operation with Israeli to deal with Iran has improved the civil relations between these countries.
Political Behaviors and Cultures
The various changes cutting across the Middle East, especially through; Turkey, Israel, and Iran, in regards to political cultures and behaviors are vibrant and evident. For instance, Turkey has established a version of Islamist democracy. These developments are making a new culture and behavior in the political arena, which can be emulated by other Islamists in the Middle East regions. The new political cultures among the states sought to bring peace and good relations among the countries and help those sign agreements. The complete political rebar-gaining of the social contract in the Middle East states this has improved the domestic political balance of authority.
Conclusion
The comparative relations between the Arab country’s political contexts and institutions are essential for a better understanding of the political developments in the region. In this regard, it is evident that there exist various similarities in terms of political developments among the countries due to the geopolitical positions and proximity. The system of government differs a bit in a few aspects in comparison. Civil relations are significant, especially in political development. In comparison, there are similar initiatives carried out by the various countries to make relations with the countries and neighbors better. The aspect of civil-military cut across all the discussed and analyzed countries shows the animosities between the countries and the countries of the initiative have taken to solve the challenges faced among the countries.