The Greek philosopher Heraclitus says: The philosophy of change is a profound philosophy that is difficult to define in lines or an author, due to its time span since the existence of creation, and that everything is changing and that change is precedent to stability. According to Plato: “The worlds are two worlds, our world that we live in and the world that lies ahead. As for our world in which we live, it is the world of change and derives its energy from the world of stability (the world of ideals), while the other world is the world in which there is no change, but it is the world of stability. It is full of perfection, eternity and idealism, and it is the world corresponding to the changing world, and the aspiration to life finds change in one of the laws of God in the universe, and it is against stability, as it is an expression of a permanent movement surrounding creatures in the form of descending and ascending hierarchy.

On his part, Aristotle said that the change is the amount of movement, which is called the “shift,” as time is linked to space and this movement by which time is moved from one place to another is achieved through it. Time is achieved and changed. Time is the amount of movement and this movement is found in the presence of the place which is There is the existence of bodies and that it is a relative entity, and that the human body is what made time a limitation and a container in proportion to the materiality of the body, so that time is that essential part of the world that humans cannot feel its essence except through being deprived of matter (1).

As for “Karl Marx”, he linked social change to the economic factor, as he is a political, social and economic philosopher. Marx claimed that behind all these social changes and transformations were purely economic factors. He claimed that there are three economic factors that move society and push it forward, according to his historical materialistic theory (2).

Marx’s argument starts from several assumptions, including: that the task of philosophers is to change history, that most philosophers have abandoned the task of changing history, that most philosophers have satisfied the task of understanding history, and that the right task that is required now is to change history, not to understand it, and that there is There is some inconsistency between the task of understanding history and the task of changing history, and that understanding history may hinder changing history.

Marx added: The change of history is more important than understanding history, and that the required change of history is a clear and specific issue that requires only focus on it. It no longer requires an understanding, but requires starting immediately, without wasting time in lagging in understanding, and that understanding history is an outdated task, so that what is required now and urgently is to change history and not understand it, and that philosophers can change the world instead of just explaining and understanding the world. 3).

Thus, his use of the term change refers to the cases of transformation that society in general undergoes to move to better conditions that enable it to proceed to the future, but not every change is for the better and this falls under the door of intended and unintended change, or whether this change is a choice or an alternative. And the transformations that society emerges from – with its individuals, institutions and bodies, reaching the center of state decision-making and international interactions in the international system – are more positive, effective, strong and able to manage its affairs, to hold its leadership accountable, reward and punish, and to counter attempts to suppress or oppress it (4).

First: the concept of change:

Change is a language in the medieval lexicon, which is “making a thing different from what it was”. Change is a source expressing an exaggerated formula that is derived from the verb (change) the thing in the sense of about it and replacing it with another, and also making it different from what it was in the past, and change: transformation and change (5) .

And change in the English language is (change). As for change or what is often translated as transformation, the term (changeability), meaning the ability to change, has been used for it, and also the term (mutation). As for the first word, we find that it has a meaning that differs from (modification) as well as (modification) and other meanings that benefit the meaning of discrimination. Accordingly, the change in the English language is the continuation of the state of difference, which imprints certain features of a phenomenon compared to a previous period of the phenomenon itself and not others, and here lies the true meaning of the change as it is related to a phenomenon or system whose general features or parts of it are subjected to a state of difference compared to the previous period, regardless of the duration The temporal difference, as a term, is used to compare the features of a state and another that are not similar to them in their overall characteristics. As for the word amendment, it means the intended case that has a kind of difference in some of its features and not in its total, even if the modification is slight because it generally expresses A change condition occurs. As for improvement, it means that the change in the situation in question is for the better and not the worst, in contrast to the case which means change for the worse, which the term decline is used to express.

One of the terms that is very close to the concept of change is change in terms of (Changeability). This is why it approaches much of the concept of change from a formal point of view, but in reality it differs from a linguistic point of view, so change is an involuntary issue in the occurrence of the opposite of change, it is a matter of voluntary occurrence in the sense that change is a conscious behavior in change This is what we will talk about on the subject of intentional and unintended change (6).

The meaning of change also comes (converting), meaning change from one state to another new state, meaning (the art of transforming from a known point to another known point, so it is taken in two forms, the first in terms of changing the image of the same thing, or taking it on the basis of replacing something with another) and as the concept of change approaches reform. (reform) and developing (developing) interchangeably (7).

In the social sciences, it is defined as “the marked transformation in appearance or content for the better” (8). Social change is also “every shift that occurs in the social structure during a period of time, and there is a change in the functions, roles, values, norms and patterns of relationships prevailing in society” (8). It is also the “transition of society voluntarily from a specific social situation to another, more developed state” (10), and this definition includes a number of basic elements:

1- The transition of society and any human grouping, such as states, institutions, movements, or parties, from one state to another, from the present to the future, in order to become an active party in the events, achieve the targeted development and renaissance, and exercise their role in the reconstruction of the universe. Thus, the scope of the definition is expanded to include action at the level of states, institutions, movements, parties, and even small work groups.

2-By his will: that is, by means of the general desire and collective will of society, with its institutions, bodies and individuals.

3- From a specific social condition to another: The word social status includes the patterns of social relations and various social systems such as family systems, economics, politics, legislative, judicial and religious systems, and then this is our choice of the term social status that makes the scope of the definition expand to include processes of change in different walks of life (11 ).

* More advanced: the term change means, in our opinion, moving any human group forward, and building its capacity for action. Consequently, the transition of society to a more backward position or its regression a step backward does not fall within the scope of our definition, because it is not possible for the will of society to meet its general population to move to a backward situation.

Thus, the use of the term change refers to the cases of social transformation that society in general undergoes in order to move to better conditions that enable it to launch into the future. They are the cases of transformation from which society – with its individuals, institutions and bodies – emerges more positive, effective, strong and able to manage its affairs, to hold its leadership accountable, reward and punish it, and to confront attempts to suppress or oppress it, and then the cases of transformation in which a controlling minority is replaced by a minority without participation Positive and effective by different community units (12).

Second: the concept of political change:

Political change refers to “the transition from an authoritarian non-democratic situation to a democratic one. Peaceful political change may be called the term (reform) and it can be considered a synonym for constitutional change in leadership or the rebuilding of political influence within society (13).

Political change is also “the totality of transformations that political structures in society may undergo or the nature of political processes and interactions between political forces and change of goals, with what all this means in terms of the impact on power centers so that power and influence are redistributed within the state itself or between several countries (14) .

The political change comes in response to several factors, the most important of which are:

1- Public opinion, or individual demands from the political system, but these demands will not often turn into outputs if they are not adopted by parties, interest groups and pressure (15).

2- A change in the influence and power of some movements, parties and interest groups, which means shifting partisan or private goals from the party framework to the state framework.

3- The transfer of powers, in democratic cases, or the redistribution of roles in other cases such as coups, automatically means that a new political life has begun to take shape, according to the logic of the new leadership.

4- External pressures and demands, from countries or organizations, and these pressures take many forms, political, economic and military.

5- External shifts in the regional environment or in the nature of international balances, which may affect the reformulation of internal and external policies in the framework of dealing with new inputs in international politics (16).

Third: political change and political modernization

The concept of political change is determined based on the characteristic of this change. If the change is positive and praiseworthy, it aims to fight corruption and eliminate it, and to achieve reform, then the definition of political reform itself applies to it, which is: “Change and amendment in the system of government, whether partial or radical, and combating manifestations of corruption and weakness. In it, by various means, so that it achieves the desired legitimate purposes. But if political change does not aim at these matters, so that it aims to perpetuate corruption or fight good, then it is intended to “change and amend the system of government, whether partial or radical, by various means, so that it is achieved without regard to the legitimate aims desired of it.”

Political reform, unlike the revolution, is nothing but an improvement in the political system, as it is a non-radical development in the form of government, without prejudice to the foundations of this system. This is why the coup comes out of it because it includes non-peaceful tools for change, and it aims to change those in charge of the system more than it aims to reform the system.  While some see revolution as a form of political reform, but it is an expression of radical and rapid political reform, and the coup to change the regime’s leaders because they misused power to bring those who carry out reform is a form of political reform, but it is a non-peaceful, radical form of reform (17 ).

Political change is also related to the concept of political modernization, and political modernization is a concept that is composed of two concepts: the first, the concept of modernization, and the second, the concept of “political”, and modernization means moving from one situation to another according to a certain standard, and in its political description that it is a change that includes everything related to the political process So, the concept of political modernization is a concept related to all aspects of political life, and in view of the great diversity in the types of political systems that contemporary society knows, whether in terms of organization or relationships and goals pursued by each system, it was natural that this diversity reflected on the trends that dealt with the study of political modernization and its dimensions ( 18).

There are two main trends in the study of political modernization:

The first: the liberal trend: It starts in explaining the concept of political modernization about democratic values in a liberal society, seeing that democracy is the only path and the natural result of the process of political modernization, as witnessed by European countries that includes: the centralization of governmental authority, differentiation and specialization of political buildings and functions, and popular participation The increasing number of individuals, which are based on the principle of political equality in particular, national unity, and the increasing integration of individuals into the political system and their emotional attachment to it (19).

The second: the Marxist trend: stems from the Marxist philosophy, which believes that the only way to the process of political modernization is the class struggle that leads to revolution. Marxists assert that they do not seek not only political and economic modernization, but also to modernize the nature of mankind and find a leadership role for him in the process of change and political modernization. What socialist countries have witnessed is the comprehensive revolution that seeks to radically change the map of society, that is, the starting point is to conduct modernization in the organizational structure of the state and then to pursue modernization through awareness and cultural modernization under the leadership of the Communist Party (20).

(Rumi) dealt with political modernization based on the factors that cause change in the public policy-making process that are affected by the material and social transformations and the interaction of politicians, political institutions and ideas with the world around them (environment: economic, social, technological, constitutional…. Etc.), and all these factors in turn lead to the occurrence of political modernization, and thus political modernization becomes “the process of public policy-making that is affected by the material and social transformations and the interaction of politicians, political institutions and ideas with the world around them” (21).

Carl Deutsch tried to study political modernization within societies in terms of the source of change, which may be internal as a result of conflict or externally as a result of external challenges or as a result of cultural friction with different cultures. He also tried to study political modernization from the angle of the dynamic spread of innovations, such as starting from urban to rural or from The capital to the regions, or from the upper classes to the lower classes, along with studying the type of change, is it a sudden revolutionary change or a slow gradual change? What are the relationships between political variables and between changes in values, trends and political behavior within these societies? (22).

Leeds tried to explain the reasons that lead to political modernization, and mentioned, among them: technological causes, science and industrialization, stages of political and social turmoil (such as: civil and international wars and crises), the existence of dynamic individuals (they are people who have basic influence and political power, and wish to modernize) and the nature of The prevailing trends (societies that emphasize achievement are more receptive to modernization compared to societies that do not emphasize achievement, and then their members strive to maintain the status quo) as well as the nature of the ideals and goals that the prevailing ideologies in a society present, which may have a religious or religious basis. My position (23).

Apter deals with political modernization from the perspective: Why do political systems change? (24). While “David Easton” dealt with political modernization from the perspective of the idea of the system and the analysis of systems, and saw that the political system is a set of interactions through which the process of the authoritative allocation of values takes place. This process refers to five basic elements: the inputs, the transformation process, the outputs, and feedback. And the environment of the political system (25).

Thus, the political system appears as an integrated circle of a dynamic nature that begins with the inputs and ends with the outputs, and the feedback is the task of linking the inputs and outputs, but the political system does not respond to all the demands that it faces, but rather performs a selection process for these demands. If the size of these demands increases, it leads to the system’s inability to respond. To it, a kind of imbalance occurs between the inputs of the political system and its capabilities, which leads to political tension that may reach the level of violence and the disruption of political communication channels.

Applium distinguishes between the size, extent and direction of modernization, so they differentiate between profound or significant-impact, secondary and secondary changes, between long-term and short-term changes and between changes that lead to structural change, and between changes that lead to the preservation of the structure (26).

Fourth: Revolutionary and Reform Change:

Welch and Pinker talked about the existence of two modes of political modernization: one is revolutionary related to violence and the other is evolutionary related to reform, and both styles agree with the other in the goal, which is modernization for the better, and both styles emphasize the importance of the presence of certain tools and forces such as political parties, political elites, the bureaucracy, the army, and Mission Modernization (27):

1- Pattern of revolutionary change:

Johnson defined revolutionary change “as a special pattern of social change, because it entails the introduction of violence into social relations.” The dimensions of revolutionary change can be identified as follows: a change in the social structure, a change in values and beliefs in society, a change of institutions, a change in the composition of the leadership and its class basis, a change in the legal system, and the use of violence in events that lead to regime change (28).

This definition reveals the dimensions of revolutionary change from an important point, which is that revolutionary change is not limited to political change, but rather is a formula that begins with political and ends with being social, thus bringing about quantitative and qualitative changes in the cultural, social and economic system, yet the distinctive element of revolutionary change is dependence on violence.

Revolution, in one of its definitions, is “a human activity associated with a collective and social project aimed at changing the existing social conditions by a qualitative change extending into the future” (29). The revolution, as a collective and social project, represents an attempt to provide a deeper understanding of the revolution. Marx emphasized the importance of the project for the revolution by emphasizing the importance of socialist ideology in relation to the revolution, and the ultimate goal with which the revolutionary project is associated is not only political results but social outcomes represented in Changing social relationships.

The Marxist conception of the revolution presents a pattern of change, which is violent revolutionary change. The history of society according to Marx is a form of revolutionary change as a result of the class struggle. The method of production represents the basis for it. Change is a type of transition from one age to an era that begins with a change in the method of production that changes the structure of social relations (30).

2- Pattern of evolutionary change:

Evolution as a method for modernization or political change includes the meaning of peaceful, gradual and working through existing institutions, which is a peaceful and legitimate change that takes place according to existing laws and institutions in society, and it is also a gradual change that does not include radical changes in a limited time, but changes that occur as a result of slow accumulations of changes Partial takes place over a long period of time, hence time is an important element in distinguishing between the revolutionary method and the evolutionary method, while the first seeks to shorten the time factor and accelerate the modernization process, the second leaves time with its full opportunity, and the relationship between revolution and development is a dialectical one, so development is The Sunnah of life we see it in nature, in the universe, and in social and human relations, but when conditions of institutions arise whose interests conflict with the continuing development, the revolution becomes a social necessity, for example when the channels of political communication narrow and are unable to convey the demands of new forces in society or when political institutions fail from parties Parliament expresses the interests of emerging social forces in such cases that block the channels of development and change becomes outside the frameworks of institutions and laws, that is, through revolution (31).

Evolution is a process of transition from a stage with certain characteristics and qualities to another with different characteristics and qualities that are better than the first. This transition takes place in a peaceful and gradual manner and mainly assumes a state of balance, stability and organized change, and the concept of equilibrium is based on the basic assumption that the political phenomenon in question is A system, that is: a group of interacting parts, and each part affects the other parts, and if any part is disrupted or the relationship between the other parts is disrupted, the system repairs itself to return to its first state or move to a new stable pattern, and stability in this framework appears to be a desirable thing, But political stability does not mean the absence of organized change, for social, economic and cultural systems have their own nature and the growth of these systems forces the political system to change according to them, and to replace it with a system more capable of change as it is to maintain its continuity and the functioning of the political system and the method of political and semi-political procedures and organizations in society. (32).

Huntington has suggested that there are two sources of modernization in developing societies, they are (33): The first is the political structure of a developing society. Some developing political systems are more established than other developing political systems. They are more adaptive, complex, coherent and independent. They are expected to be more accommodating to modernization and more extensive For models of political participation. Second, political leaderships (autocracy, military, and revolutionaries) by virtue of their influence in the political process can be a source of modernization in developing societies.

Smeller said that the development witnessed by developing societies included four processes: In the field of technology, developing societies move from using simple and traditional methods to using scientific knowledge. In industry, developing societies are witnessing a shift from using human and animal energy to robotic work. In agriculture, developing societies are shifting from self-sufficiency farming to producing cash crops. In terms of ecosystems, developing societies move from farm and village to urban centers (34).

Fifth: Dimensions of the change process:

Change in its general framework carries the meaning of mobility and instability, and the opposite of stagnation, but in the details and the curriculum was not a point of consensus, so the different schools concerned with change emerged from its goal and foundations or even its curricula and methods (35).

The points of difference in any process of change are:

1- The aim of change: the difference in it is a natural thing in harmony with the diversity and difference in views between the forces that make up any society. Change is a method that the active forces in society follow to bring their ideas and principles into effect. The difference in goals based on the diversity of visions in society will be reflected in the change efforts in it.

2- The basis of change: It refers to the field from which the forces of change will launch their project, and the most important foundations are: the economic basis, the political basis, the moral, educational and educational basis, the legal basis, and the intellectual basis (36).

3- Approaches to change: change from the bottom to the top or vice versa, revolutionary or non-revolutionary change, peaceful change or violence, change by internal or external forces, and gradual or revolutionary change. In addition to many methods and approaches that often come as a natural product of the thinking and principles of the forces seeking to change, and the nature of the conditions of the stage.

Hence, the disagreement between schools of change requires addressing the issue within the framework of commonalities between the divergent viewpoints, and on this basis, change expresses the movement of society that rejects its reality or some of its parts, and seeks to move it towards a new stage that represents the goal of the change process.  Or it is, as Rosapth Moses Kanter points out, the process of analyzing the past to derive current behaviors required for the future, and includes moving from a present state to a transitional state until we reach the desired state in the future ”(37).

This flexible and general definition of change includes many branches that express the difference in viewpoints. The first part of the definition considers change as a framework for means, and the means may be different and varied, as indicated by their diversity according to the approach and method. It also expresses the movement of society with varying degrees of strength, and with varying degrees of participation between forces, institutions, elites, individuals and others. The mobility of society mentioned in the definition comes as a rejection of reality or its political, economic or social parts, and in all aspects of life, so that the desire and change-based force reaches the pre-determined goals in the aspects subject to the change process.

Sixth: Patterns of Political Change:

Within the framework of patterns of political change emerge the visions of Huntington and William Mitchell (change by components) Almond and Rostow (change by crisis) and Berner and Prior (complex change):

The first pattern: change by components:

Huntington is concerned with the relationship between political participation and political institutionalization. It is a relationship that can clearly be abstracted from the study of modernization. This modernization may be one of the major historical sources of changes in participation, but it is not the only source. The problem of balance between participation and institutionalization is a problem that societies witness at all levels of development. The upheavals that Negroes and students participated in in the United States in the late 1960s can be fruitfully analyzed within this framework: in major cities and universities, the existing structure – institutions – faced challenges, creating new channels so that these new groups could participate in the decisions that affect them. Their lives through it.

This theoretical approach – by Samuel Huntington – which originally focused on the relationship between (institutional + participation) can be expanded to include more numerous and varied variables. The first step in analyzing political change, as defined by William Mitchell, is to define the “objectives” or “components” that change addresses (38).

And determine what are (or what may be) the components of the political system, and then after that what are the relationships that the changes bear (if any). That is, this approach focuses on the change in the components, and the political system can be considered as a collection of many components that are all changing, some at rapid rates, and others at slower rates. Here it can be said that the study of political change includes: focusing on what appear to be major components of the political system, determining the rate, scope, and direction of change in these components, and analyzing the relationships between changes in one component and changes in other components.

The system is seen to include many components, including: culture, structures, groups, leadership, and politics. A fruitful study of political change can begin with an analysis of changes in these components, and the relationship between change in one of these components, and change in other components.

Political change can be analyzed on both levels: the first among the components and another level of changes between the elements of each of the components of the system. The components and elements are the goals of change. And patterns of change in components, and in the elements.

The change in power is one of the patterns of change related to the political phenomenon, and it is believed that changes in power should be the only changes that should become the interest of the political analyst. But the focus on power alone is the result of adopting a certain definition of politics.

The analysis of political change may be directed to simple changes in the strength of the components and elements that make up the political system. But more important is the relationship between the changes in the power of the individuals who make up the system – the components and elements that the individuals represent – and the changes in its content. If political analysis is limited to changes in power, it cannot provide a comprehensive understanding of causes and consequences.

Political change can be analyzed according to three levels: “the rate of change”, “the scope of change” and “the direction of change.” The change in one component can be compared to the rate, scope, and direction of change in the other components, and through these comparisons it is possible to shed light on the patterns of stability and instability in the political system, and the extent to which changes in one of the components have reached based on or as a result of the correlation, change, or Absence of change in other components (39).

The second pattern: the pattern of change in the crisis:

El Mund and Rostow posit the crisis-change model as a general framework for analyzing political dynamics. Almond believes that the early theories of comparative politics and development can be divided according to two dimensions. First, to what extent do they include models of equilibrium or development models? Second, to what extent do you evaluate her predictions based on determinism or choice?

Rostow came in an attempt to debate with a model somewhat similar to that of the Mond. Rostow assumes that political change is the product of dissatisfaction with the existing position, and dissatisfaction that leads to a political movement. Indeed, political movement is always a product of dissatisfaction. This movement may or may not succeed. If it succeeds, then the organization, the movement, or other groups responsible for success are all developing new goals or they may wither and vanish. But if their efforts for change fail, then the group responsible for these efforts either disintegrates and dissolves, or continues to pursue its old goal, With a diminishing expectation of its probabilities.

Rostow also believes that the forces that participated in their efforts in creating the government, or in seizing power through a group or individual, are completely different from those forces that keep the government alive, or preserve the status of an individual or group in power during a period. An extended period of time – until the direction changes – and that his theory of political change must take into account these differences and give them a systemic character. Thus Rostow, like the Mond, places primary importance on the choices that the political leadership must make (40).

The third pattern: the complex pattern of change in Ronald Brunner & Garry Brewer:

In their study of the political aspects of modernization, “Berner and Brewer” developed a model of complex change that includes twenty-two variables and twenty measures:

  • Ten of these variables and eight of the measures were distributed based on the rural and urban sectors.
  • Three variables and three measures formed the demographic subsystem.
  • Nine variables and six measures of the economic subsystem.
  • Ten variables and eleven measures of the political subsystem.

The relationship between these variables and measures was expressed in twelve equations derived from the general theories of modernization, and the model includes the variables that can be directly affected by the government’s movement, and the variables that are not subject to such influence.

Berner-Pryor’s approach has achieved new frontiers in political analysis. Theoretically: it provides a model of a high degree of simplification and a high degree of accuracy, of the political system, a model that expands to include a significant number of meaningful economic, political and demographic variables, and the relationships between them. In practice: it refers to a practical treatment in a direction that makes it possible in the end to provide policymakers and to equip them with the means to analyze the potential outcomes of policy-making tests, in order to produce results directly appropriate for their purposes. In fact: the construction of this model introduces into the science of politics a pattern of complex analysis of relations between variables, which prevailed for a long time, before that, in economics.

But the Burner / Brewer approach was limited by its initial theoretical assumptions and the appropriateness of these assumptions to the real-world political systems to which the model was originally directed. The model with the twelve equations represents a reasonably good guide for the interaction of variables and measures in Turkey and the Philippines in the 1950s and 1960s – of the twentieth century – and the suitability of the model for the future is based on the assumption that the structure of the model and the importance of measures do not vary over time. The model provides ways and means to test the results of major changes in government policy and major changes in other variables caused by other tools. However, it does not provide means to predict the major changes in the system or even when these changes will have their repercussions in the form of a change in some of the variables in the model (41).

Within the framework of these patterns, the researcher believes that they tend, in one way or another, to liberate political analysis from the assumptions that restricted it in the early, previous stage, and from the absent interests in modernization and development, which occupied it in a later stage. It indicates an increasing degree of symmetry or balance in the study of political change and the study of social change. More importantly, they represent important steps in the direction of formulating general theories of political transitions.

————————————–

Margin

(1) Jitar Jahami, Understanding the Causality among the Speakers and Philosophers between Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd: (Study and Analysis), Dar Al-Mashriq Publications, 2nd Edition Beirut, 1977.

(2) Amir Ghandour, Marx’s Mission: Change Not Understanding – Dismantling Marxism Part 3, Civilized Dialogue, No. (3436), 7/24/2011, link

(3) The theory of social change for Malek Bennabi and Karl Marx, the text is available on the International Information Network at the link

(4) Monem Sahi Al-Ammar, On the Philosophy of Orientation to the Future, Journal of Political Issues, Nahrain University, Faculty of Political Sciences, Issues 23/24, 2011.

(5) Ibrahim Mustafa and others, Al-Waseet Dictionary, The Arabic Language Academy, Part 1, None.

(6) Hussam Al-Alousi, Al-Zaman in Religious and Philosophical Thought and the Philosophy of Science, The Arab Foundation for Studies and Publishing Printing Press, 1st Edition, Beirut, 2005, pp. 9-12.

(7) Dictionary of Meanings, on the International Information Network, the Internet: http://www.almaany.com

(8) Berch Berberoglu, Class Structure and Social Transformation, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT. 1994, P. xi.

(9) Monem Sahi Al-Ammar, Strategic Thinking and Managing Change, (Baghdad, Al-Nahrain University, College of Political Sciences, 2008), pp. 3-5.

(10) Abd al-Basit Muhammad Hassan, The Fundamentals of Social Research (Cairo, Wahba Library, Twelfth Edition, 1998), pp. 10-25.

(11) Dr. Mostafa El-Khashab, Introduction to Sociology, Cairo, The Anglo-Egyptian Library, 1992, p. 76.

(12) Ahmed Abdel Hakim, Dr. Hisham Morsi, M. Wael Adel, the war of nonviolence. The third option, the Change Academy website

(13) Imad Muayad Jassim Muhammad Al-Marsoumi, The Impact of the Study of the Forces of Change on Prospecting the Future of the Nation-State – Human Development as a Model, unpublished PhD thesis, (Iraq, Nahrain University, Faculty of Political Sciences, 2006) p. 27.

(14) Ismail Sabry Muqallid and Muhammad Mahmoud Rabee ‘: The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Kuwait: Kuwait University, 1994, p. 47.

(15) Nizam Barakat, (et al.): Principles of Political Science, (Oman: Dar Al-Karmel for Publishing and Distribution, Second Edition, 1987), pp. 264-270.

(16) Ismail Sabry Muqallid and Muhammad Mahmoud Rabee, previous reference, pp. 47-48.

(17) Dr. Anas Jarab, Reform and Political Change. Truth and Concept, Basaer Magazine, Issue 25/6/2012. Link

(18) Gaber Said Awad, Political Change in Argentina in the First Peronist Period, from 1945-1955, Unpublished MA Thesis in Political Science, (Cairo: Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Department of Political Sciences, 1981) p.7.

(19) Abdel Ghaffar Rashad Mohamed, The Role of the Elite in Political Development: A Study with an Attempt to Apply to Developing Countries, The Egyptian Model, Unpublished MA Thesis (Cairo: Faculty of Economics and Political Science, 1978), p. 149.

(20) Muhammad Numan Jalal, The Proletarian Cultural Revolution and Political Change in China, an unpublished MA (Cairo: Faculty of Economics and Political Science, 1978), pp. 33-34.

(21) Rome, Eric, Modern Politics: An Introduction to Behavior and Institutions (London: Routledye & keyan, lmtd., 1969) p.99

(22) Dr. Nabil Al-Samalouti, Building Power and Political Development: A Study in Political Sociology (Cairo: The Egyptian General Book Authority, 1978) pp. 184-185.

(23) Leeds, C. A., Political studies (London: Macdonald & Evan Ltd., 1975) p. 211.

(24) Apter david E., Political change: collected Essays (London: Frank & cass co., 1974) p. 110-111.

(25) Dr. Ali Al-Din Hilal, Introduction to Comparative Political Systems, Lectures given to students of the Department of Political Science (Cairo: Faculty of Economics and Political Science, 1975/1976), pp. 76-78.

(26) Appelaum, Richard P. Theories of social change. (chicago: markham publishing co., 1970) p. 7-9

(27) Welch, Ciande E., and Bunker, Maris, Revolution and political change (California: Duxury press, 1972) p. 34

(28) Johanson, Chalmers, op. Cit. , p. 1.

(29) Dr. Abdul-Redha Al-Taan, “Contribution to the Study of the Concept of the Revolution”, Journal of Legal and Political Sciences, Baghdad, Volume One, No. (3), 1977, pp. 82-83.

(30) Kwame Nkrumah, Handbook of Revolutionary War, translated by Munir Shafiq (Beirut: The Arab Foundation for Studies and Publishing, 1972), pp. 90-92.

(31) Dr. Farouk Youssef, Revolution and Political Change with Application to Egypt, (Cairo: Ain Shams Library, 1979), p.10.

(32) See: Dr. Hamed Rabie, The Theory of Political Analysis, Lectures given to students of the Department of Political Science (Cairo: Cairo Modern Library, 1971/1972), pp. 1-17.

(33) Huntington, Samuel P. “The Change to Change”, op. cit., pp. 413-419.

(34) Smelser, Neil J., “Mechanism of Change & Adjustment to Change”, in: Finkle Jason L., 7 Gable, Richard W., Political Development & Social Change, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1968) p. 28

(35) Bilal Mahmoud Muhammad al-Shobaki, Political Change from the Perspective of Political Islam Movements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip: The Hamas Movement as a Model, ”a thesis submitted to complement the requirements for a master’s degree in planning and political development, An-Najah National University, College of Graduate Studies, 2007, p. 29 -34.

(36) Najah Yousef Al-Sabateen: Concepts of the Islamic Renaissance, Amman: Dar Al Israa for Publishing and Distribution, First Edition, 2004. Pp. 3-4.

(37) Center of Excellence for Non-Governmental Organizations, Change Management, Jordan, the text is available on the Center’s website, at the link

(38) William C. Mitchell, The American Polity, New York, 1962.

(39) Dr. Abdel Ghaffar Rashad Muhammad, Theories of Political Development, (Cairo, Cairo University, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, 1999/2000), pp. 48-51.

(40) Dr. Abdel Ghaffar Rashad Mohamed, Theories of Political Development, (Cairo, Cairo University, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, 1999/2000), pp. 51-53.

(41) Dr. Abd al-Ghaffar Rashad Muhammad, previous source, pp. 54-56.

To read the text in PDF format, click here.