Research findings contribute to the literature in two ways. First, instead of testing the contemporary constitutional and political transformation in the Middle East against the liberal constitutional blueprint, I proposed a realist theory to espouse the uneasy connection among liberalism (e.g. neutrality, autonomy), moral principles (e.g. toleration, pluralism), legitimation, and power relations. Thus, if a realist route of theoretical reflection is followed, that is, if it is not moral ideals and principles that guide and restrict political action, then one may argue that a syncretic dialog between liberalism and Islamic philosophy is ineffective, perhaps even unnecessary. Such attempts focus on reconciling Islam and liberalism at an abstract level, though the establishment of political and legal orders are a response to real forces shaping society. From a realist account, constitutional moments are embedded within the conflictual nature of politics and must be most productively viewed as potentially the ultimate battlegrounds for conflicting identities and political projects in which it is always possible that clashes could emerge over foundational norms and values concerning collective identity (e.g. constituent power) and the nature of the regime (constituted form). The second contribution involves applying a realist interpretation of constitutional founding and comparative constitutional analysis with a particular focus on the Arab Spring. Realism provides an alternative theoretical perspective to that of liberalism in evaluating and examining constitutional changes and transformations on least four grounds: it focuses on the autonomy of politics, it allows for the abandoning of communitarianism and cultural relativism as alternatives to liberal theory, it requires theorizing in context, and it enables empirical studies of constitutional change that are critical. I examine these aspects by offering analyses from the case of the Arab Spring. Furthermore, in order to interpret and make sense of the historical contestation over the constitution values and foundations in Turkey, I drew on Carl Schmitt’s political and constitutional thought in order to reflect on the political struggle over the foundational norms and values of a constitutional settlement in modern Turkey. This analysis, which focuses on the relationship between democracy and sovereign decision in Schmitt’s thought, extends the implications of his writings beyond the Weimar Republic. I argue that the political movement of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) successfully identified itself with two distinct (yet partly overlapping) narratives in order to establish a truer democracy than the old regime, which was guarded by the military and the bureaucracy. The first narrative concerns the subordination of the will of the people to the guardianship model of the old regime. The second narrative involves negating the political decision of the Kemalist elites on the grounds of identity, in particular, the dissonance between the Kemalist ruling class and the Muslim majority of the society.
