Pan Arabism and the future

Pan-Arabism rose as the region gained its independence. The notion that came with the movement is that with unity came power, while division weakened the region and the people that live within it and made them subjects of repression. Very similar to the Ottoman’s Tanzimat, Pan Arabism redefined what it means to be an Arab, taking steps to redefine the definition to include all Arabic speaking countries. The movement rose as a secular left leaning ideology that strongly opposed religious politics, but embraced Islamic civilization as one of the pillars of enlightened Arab history. Indeed, Micheal Aflaq, one of the most prominent Arab nationalist and the theorist behind the establishment of the Ba’athist party was a Christian, yet embraced the historical successes of Islam in influencing the region. Unfortunately the theory behind Ba’athism and Pan Arabism in general is modernizing the region with centralized populist agendas.

Jamal Abdel Nasser became a back spine for the Pan Arab movement and his ideas and successes swept the region east to west. Even the gulf monarchies were heavily affected by the rise of Nasserism in the region. It was at that peak that an Arab union was possible, starting with the United Arab Republic in 1958 which made Abdel Nasser dominate the politics and decisions of Syria, causing the 1961 Coup d'état that brought the UAR to its knees. Inspired by the Ba’athists in Iraq, the Syrian branch planned a successful coup d'état in March 8^th, 1963.

Pan-Arabism has declined since the fall of Jamal Abdel Nasser. Although the collective reality of the region became wide clear, the idea was destroyed from within. The Ba’athists in Iraq repressed the Shi’a majority, while the Ba’athists in Syria repressed a Sunni majority. The ideological roots of the Ba’athists party and Micheal Aflaq were underdeveloped and vague. Although the Pan Arabism secularism did not succeed in transforming the region to purely civil law countries, many secular norms developed because of the rise of Pan Arabism. Author Amira El-Azhary makes a strong case for the parity of education in Jordan and how women education in the region have come a long way. Educating women, and women equality are definitely a result of that era. Another trace of that can be seen within the Democratic Constitutional Rally in Tunis, and its first president Habib Bourguiba which banned polygamy in 1956. Although the party is not secular in terms of its democratic, free speech understanding, it did have some secular roots.

The main factors that destroyed a MENA integration is political differences between the countries especially in terms of economic and political development. Nasserism and Ba’athism along with leftist parties were not clear on their centrally planned economies despite Abdel Nasser’s successes in developing the Egyptian economy. The problem with Nasser is that he banned all opposing political parties despite Nasser’s vague political organization himself. The collapse of Nasser was the collapse of Nasserism, the only hope at the time to achieve practical unity.

I could never see a situation where the MENA region will be able to create a supra-national entity because of many reasons. First of all, the degree of development of the different economies limits the integration possibilities in the region. Moreover, the regimes are very different in nature, democratic regimes will not join hands with authoritarian republics or monarchies. Lastly, there has been many efforts in forming a more integrated Gulf Cooperation Council. The GCC have very similar regime structures and a homogenous population that is highly relatable. The GCC is currently a Custom’s Union, and has many shared economic and political activities. However, the council has discussed creating a monetary union for the past two decades and has failed to implement such a plan because of senseless reasons such as the name of the currency. Democratic regimes will give up some levels of sovereignty for the benefit of the population, however, authoritarian regimes would never give any part of sovereignty since the main goal is the regime’s survival rather than the country’s future.