Abstract:
This thesis examines Druze politics in relation to other sectarian groups, particularly Sunni and Shia in Lebanon and Syria. Politics of Druze in the occupied Golan Heights and within the Israeli political system is also assessed. The central question that this thesis aims to answer is how Druze politics has been implicated by contemporary sectarian awakenings and how it is being articulated in relation to the different power sharing reconfigurations. The rational choice theory is used in order to entertain different responses. Three power sharing coalition-based arrangement scenarios are evaluated: minorities’ alliance, majority-minority alliance, and secular alliance. The rational choice of a minority to join one alliance rather than another is assessed according to both the durability and benefits attained. This thesis implements an opinion study approach of key Druze intellectual and political leaders in order to compare and assess rational choice perspectives in coalition strategies. The findings highlight serious uncertainty and division confronting the Druze in alliance choices amid regional turbulences and political upheavals. At the same time, the thesis reveals the fact that such differences and divisions within the Druze community may better serve its political interest by widening its margin of maneuverability during epoch of uncertain transitions. Thus, under political duress, the thesis rejects both ‘determinism’ and ‘unitarianism’ in minority’s coalition rational choice modality in favor of a situational thesis.
