FRANCIS MATTHEW

The turmoil in the Arab world is redefining what builds a sense of nationality. In some Arab states the unity of the nation is under question, as the Kurds in Iraq quietly go their own way by reinforcing their ‘autonomy’ within Iraq without necessarily seeking outright independence, whereas the South Sudanese have gone ahead and seceded from Sudan and are building a new nation.
Egypt and Tunisia have gone through the turmoil of revolution, and both are still manifestly one nation, even if there are continuing debates about what type of society each state might want. Libya has been less fortunate, and the transitional government has lost control of large sections of the country to militias which have refused to disarm and acknowledge the authority of the new government.
The social glue that holds a nation together is being changed throughout the Arab world, with unpredictable consequences. In most parts of the world, the rush to form nation states in the late 1800s and 1900s was first driven by language, race and religion, and then by an emerging loyalty to the structures of the new states. For example, the borders of the unifying Germany and Italy were largely defined by their languages.
But the Arab world is built of nations which do not have such sharp differences, as all the nation states emerging in the 20th century shared a language, and a dominant religion, and any differences of race were blurred by other concepts like the Muslim umma, as well as loyalty to tribe and family.
In this situation, frequently what became loyalty to a nation state was first defined by loyalty to particular leaders, such as the Saudi state which was built by King Abdul Aziz Bin Saud, and Jordan by the Hashemite kings who moved there from Makkah.
But seeking the loyalty of all the people within a border is only part of the task of defining a nation. It is as important to be clear about what kind of nation the people are part of. The example of Saudi Arabia is instructive, as the founding king built a large nation based on loyalty to his person, but he also deliberately worked with the Wahabi religious establishment to give the emerging Saudi state its unique identity. King Abdul Aziz was well aware of the power of loyalty to Wahabi Islam, and used it to generate loyalty to the new state.
But relations between the secular monarchy and the religious establishment were always fraught with tension, and there were several notable standoffs like when the Ikhwan, the Wahabi fighting force which supported King Abdul Aziz, rebelled in 1927 and were finally defeated in 1929.
In 1979, the long simmering tensions between the secular and religious elements of Saudi identity erupted when extremists took control of the Grand Mosque and had to be driven out by force. This led to the secular leadership giving away too much power during the 1980s and 1990s to the religious establishment, which was given control of the ministries of religious affairs (as they always had), justice, and (crucially) education.
The reestablishment of the authority of secular national institutions is at the heart of Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz’s programme of reform. One example is the annual Janadriya Festival, which is held every February. The king is an active sponsor of the event, which celebrates “the cultural traditions that unite this great country, while also revealing the regional differences which create the distinctive character of Saudi individuality,” as expressed by Saudi Arabia’s tourism website.
What is important is that the Janadriya gives renewed impetus to the secular traditions of Saudi Arabia, and publicly values them as helping to define the identity of the Saudi nation, without any reference to the Wahabi religious establishment.
Many nations have defined political moments of activity when their identity is reaffirmed. In the Gulf states, Kuwait is unique with its parliamentary tradition, which is very much part of the nation’s public life. Kuwaitis are very proud of their parliament, often pointing to January 2006 when it rejected the incoming ruler.
In its 40 years of history, the UAE has not had such moments. Its federal structure has allowed the inevitable tensions to be managed and it has enjoyed relatively calm development on all fronts. It has not had to fight a border war nor deal with a succession crisis.
For example, the 1956 skirmish with Saudi Arabia over the Buraimi Oasis was before the federation was formed and was handled by Abu Dhabi, and it has not become part of the national legend.
But the intense pride which Emiratis take in the progress of their country matches that gained by political or territorial crises in other states. There is a strong drive by the UAE government to reinforce national traditions, which allow Emiratis to express their nationality by accent, or dress, or cultural and sporting achievements.
But all these activities are not defining on their own, and reinforce the solid pride shown by Emiratis when they looked at their nation last December and noted how far their country had come in only 40 years.
– Gulf News