The Middle East including the Gulf region is witnessing a worrisome new trend of dual leadership in various countries threatening the political sovereignty of nation-states. Two opposing parties are claiming legitimacy to the political leadership of a country using a wide range of mass support plans and enforcing their position by peaceful means that may turn quickly into hostility and violence. The two conflicting parties are using all sorts of power mechanisms either by hijacking one of the three main branches of authority or controlling parallel institutions. This power struggle has been noted recently in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran and is spreading to other countries.
With the rise of ethnic, sectarian and political tensions, nation-states are suffering from political divisions and undergoing difficulties. Arabs, Kurds and Persians have cultural differences that have resurfaced in recent times. Sunnis, Shiites and Christians have conflicting political interests and have used religion to corroborate their power struggle. Religious extremists are opposed to reformists. In short the region is face to face with a new type of inner division raising fears of civil wars.
This trend is caused by external intervention and internal calculations in each country. Two major regional countries, Iraq and Iran, were included in the Axis of Evil by the United States after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. With the direct incursion of US forces into Iraq and with US interference in other countries in the region, tension mounted among the Arab and Iranian leadership.
Iran’s fears were particularly intensified. Apart from the Axis of Evil label, it felt threatened by the Americans who assisted Iraq in their eight-year war against them in the 1980s. The success of the Islamic revolution with the possibility of export of the revolutionary values and principles to other countries in the region troubled America a great deal at the time. However, due to ethnic and sectarian reasons, Iran abandoned its efforts to export revolution. But it could not retract totally from its revolutionary ideology of Wilayat Al-Faqih (rule by the clergy). The outcome was the creation of a dual leadership, one traditional setup representing Islamic fundamentalism and the other a political leadership that adhered to democratic principles, modernity and a reform movement.
Since then, this concept of dualism in leadership has become prominent, asserted at times and kept low-key at others. Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — all these countries have been subjected to some kind of tension and pressures from the conservatives. They were caught up between the fundamental Islamic leadership and the political leadership. These pressures and conflicts persisted throughout the 1990s.
With the entry of US forces into Iraq, Iran tried to strengthen its position against the United States by influencing some regional movements. This created internal divisions in various areas, such as Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories, and created a power struggle between opposing sides attempting to control the country.
This dual leadership which in its turn creates a political deadlock threatens the peaceful existence of these countries. In some places, the dual leadership creates the impression of a state within a state as in Lebanon. Hezbollah attempted to take over the country as the governing parties tried to disarm them and reduce their power. In Iran, Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, opposed the then President Khatami and the reformers and often contradicted their policies. In the Palestinian territories, Hamas was pitted against Fatah of President Mahmoud Abbas. Both had powers that could affect and limit the power of the other. Some displayed their differences in demonstrations; others entangled in severe clashes. The result was a political deadlock that paralyzed Palestine and all its institutions.
This reminds me of Hegel’s theory of dialectics. Such clash of conflicts between two opposing fronts, i.e. the dual leadership, according to Hegel’s dialects, should lead to reconciliation between the two opposing sides when the power of negativity is realized and logic is empowered. However, this can only happen if there is no external interference such as the US involvement in the region. The United States should realize that its human, economic and strategic losses have been grave with its direct military intervention in Iraq and other places. Hegemony through intimidation and division will not succeed because the general public in the region is now educated and knows what is going on.
In line with Hegel’s theory of dialectics, the Palestinian Authority has been able to resolve its dual leadership problem when they placed Palestinian national interests above factional considerations by agreeing to the Makkah declaration under the auspices of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah. Lebanon is trying to do the same with continuous meetings to resolve its problems, again with the encouragement and assistance from Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, the Sunni-Shiite struggle in Iraq shows no sign of abating only because some external factors, the occupying forces, work against reconciliation. America does not understand that the majority of the Iraqi people voted for the constitution and the government because they were told that this was the only way to get the foreign troops out of their country. If the US forces leave Iraq, they will give them a chance to experience Hegel’s dialectics and witness their transition to reconciliation and development.
As for the theocratic despotism in Iran, it will fade if Iran does not get threatened. Even the Iranian nuclear program that is troubling the regional states and the international community will come to an end if Iran’s security is not threatened.
In the emerging multipolar world order, the Middle East and the Gulf region should realize the importance of building a strong defense mechanism to prevent its penetration by external powers. Efforts need to be made to nullify any ethnic, sectarian and political differences to safeguard the vital strategic, economic and social interests of the whole region.
— Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic. She holds a doctorate from the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra. E-mail to: [email protected]
