The dissertation examines the question of why political authorities assign different powers to courts during political transitions through the cases of Egypt and Tunisia following the 2011 uprisings. In Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces allowed the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) to continue exercising its power of constitutional review throughout the transition. In Tunisia, the transitional Ben Achour Commission dissolved the Constitutional Council and suspended constitutional

more »

... eview for the duration of the transition. The dissertation argues that the formal powers of courts after 2011 were determined by a two step process that hinges on ideas about the judicial role: first, relations between the courts and the old regime produced a set of ideas about the judicial role; second, these ideas constrained the political authorities that designed the transitional institutions following the 2011 revolutions. The dissertation considers two alternative explanations. First, the powers of courts may have been determined by the interests of political authorities for or against majority rule. Second, courts may have drawn support from civil society. If courts have allies in civil society, they are more able to claim additional formal powers. The dissertation rejects these explanations based on evidence from interviews with judges, lawyers and political parties, and a study of judicial decisions and transitional documents. Instead, studies of the behavior of the Tunisian Administrative Tribunal, the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional court, and of the incorporation of the shariah into the two countries' legal systems demonstrate the plausibility of the judicial role hypothesis. The dissertation contributes to a debate about how to conceive of democratic transitions. Against the voluntarist account presented by Philippe Schmitter and Guillermo O'Donnell, the dissertation argues that the institutional legacy of the judiciary provides a real constraint on decision makers during the transition. It also contributes to a debate about what role courts can 1 play in democratization. Scholars of democratization, such as Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, argue that strong courts aid democratization. Scholars of courts in authoritarianism, such as Nathan Brown, see courts as part of the regime. The dissertation emphasizes the particular 2 characteristics of national legal systems that determine whether courts will act as holdovers from the old regime or as agents of democratization. Chapter 1: History and Institutional Choices The chapter introduces the legal history of Egypt and Tunisia and excludes explanations 1 Schmitter and O'Donnell (1978) 2 Linz and Stepan guide the overall direction of the project. Richard provided copious comments on each of the chapters. As the only lawyer on the committee, Aziz gave a valuable perspective on the dissertation topic. I would also like to thank David Patel for providing comments on the early drafts of the dissertation and for serving as the outside reader of the dissertation. His expertise on Middle East politics was invaluable to the project.