The Islamic State shocked the Middle East not only because of its brutality,
but also because it openly rejected existing state boundaries.
Many pundits suggest that the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
that drew the lines of the modern Middle East was original sin,
although many of those states date their identities to before the colonial era.
But even when borders are artificial and have no pre-modern precedent,
governments can gain legitimacy in the eyes of their citizenry, and craft
national identity. If legitimacy is necessary to security and stability,
what guarantees it? Is it tradition? Tribal loyalty?
Religion? Or could it be fear? Does quality of government —
its ability to provide services — matter? As civil war and
unprecedented challenges to existing governments spread across the region,
perhaps it's time to ask: "What makes government legitimate?"
Legitimacy in political science is the people's recognition
and acceptance of authority by a government.
So what makes a government legitimate? Let's look at a few factors and how they
impact the Middle East.
A nation state is a country where a
majority of its citizens share a culture, language, or ethnicity.
Japan serves as a great example. Historically, France has as well.
Generally, by these metrics, the United States doesn't.
So is a nation-state legitimate by default?
Not really. Egypt is a nation-state by most definitions.
Its population is homogeneous. Egyptians share a language, and broadly identify
with the historical identity of Egypt. Yet the Arab Spring took the Cairo
government by storm, and saw the public overthrow long-time
leader Hosni Mubarak. The United Arab Emirates was opposite.
The UAE was unaffected by the Arab Spring, and has
had stable rule and prosperity. Its citizenry might be homogeneous — there
are actually very few Emiratis — but its population is diverse, and
hundreds of thousands of non-Emiratis make the nation their home.
More broadly in the Middle East, religion plays a significant factor,
especially Islam. Is it the key to legitimacy?
Contrary to popular opinion, Islamic law per se might not be that important.
Rather, the fact that it is mentioned might give people a meaningful sense their
beliefs are represented. Let's take a look at Lebanon. Its
constitution is confessional, reserving different political positions
for different faiths. Lebanon is diverse religiously and each
group fears tyranny of the other. Yet one reason for the civil war, first
in Lebanon and more recently in Syria, was religion.
In Lebanon, christians and muslims fought each other as their proportions of
population shifted, but government power didn't. In truth,
many Middle Eastern states just use Islam to make their governments.
So clearly religion seems necessary to win government acceptance in the Middle
East. But is it enough?
Qatar's constitution helps shed more light on what makes Middle Eastern
governments legitimate. Its constitution declares Islam as the
state religion, but it also guarantees that the state
will provide care for the young, and will make education free of charge.
That doesn't mean that Qatar is a free country,
but in exchange for relinquishing many freedoms, the Qatari people get state
services and cash in return. This is a simplified version of what
political scientists call a "social contract."
Do social contracts and good governance form the basis of legitimacy in the
Middle East? No. A country needs to be otherwise
stable for a social contract to work. While Iraqis complained about lack of
government services in the wake of the US-led invasion,
Shiites rallied around the parties that flew Shiite flags over those that actually
delivered electricity, security, or clean water.
That only goes so far, however. Many Iraqis now on the street say they are
tired of corruption and government inefficiency,
and want a streamlined order, maybe dominated by a strong president.
So maybe a king or strongman can impose order?
The conventional wisdom is that Arab monarchies are more stable than Arab
republics, especially in countries that may be ethnically or tribally diverse.
Monarchs become unifying symbols, not only as the head of state, but in some
cases harnessing religious legitimacy as well.
But this argument doesn't even conform to recent history.
While monarchies in Morocco, Jordan, and Kuwait have survived,
monarchies in Egyp, Libya, and Afghanistan are long gone.
There is no consistent factor that decided which monarchy survived
and which were overthrown, except maybe recently where the oil-rich monarchies
paid off their opposition, or subsidized their poor cousins in
Morocco and Jordan to do likewise.
So no, there is no magic formula which grants Middle Eastern governments
legitimacy. Only one thing is certain: A generational change is underway that
is iconoclastic. The new generation is unwilling to base
legitimacy solely on ethnic identity or religion.
Ultimately, however, demands for good governance are what may soon unite
young generations across the diverse region.
Existing governments should take note. If they don't,
they ignore it at their own peril.
To learn more about legitimacy,
sovereignty, and the core problems facing the Middle
East, check out the link in the description below.
Also let us know what other topics you'd like AEI scholars to cover on reThink
Tank, and be sure to subscribe for more videos
and research from AEI.