Academic Year 2011-2012

Power Sharing in the Middle East and the Ottoman Legacy
Thursday, April 5, 2012, 12:30-2:00 PM
The Fares Center Conference Room (Mugar 129), Tufts University
Speaker: Nadim Shehadi, Associate Fellow of the Middle East Program at Chatham House, United Kingdom

Summary

Nadim Shehadi, Associate Fellow of the Middle East Program at Chatham House, United Kingdom, spoke on the subject of “Power Sharing in the Middle East and the Ottoman Legacy.” Shehadi called 2011 the end of 20th century and identified a trend of centuries not ending or beginning on time. In this framing, the 1870s marked the start of the 20th century and the rise of the powerful modern nation state. During decolonization, this model was exported to the developing world in an idealized fashion, often advocating policies beyond the scope of former colonial powers to implement in their own countries. The 20th century model is now cracking and, in 2011, this manifest in the Greek riots, Occupy Wall Street movements and the Arab Spring. All of these are a revolt against the old state model and it will take a decade or more for the full effects to unfold.

Many observers of the Middle East assume the region’s states will mold themselves on a Turkish model, forming a state based on Islam that is compatible with modernity and democracy, a structure that Western governments find appealing. However, the fallen and failing regimes of the region were already extensions of the Turkish model where the main features of secularism dominated. Secularism, or laïcité, revolves around the French concept of citizens molded in cohesive fashion, and suppresses diversity and regionalism. Arab nationalism was based on this model at the expense of local identities in a region comprised of diverse groups. Efforts to create cohesive national identity within state boundaries were repressive.

Looking forward, Shehadi outlined another Turkish model based on an older Ottoman style. The state was decentralized and exercised little influence on provinces as long as pashas paid taxes to the central authority. As a result, minorities were recognized with autonomous rights and group identity was incorporated into the system. In outlining a modern adaptation Shehadi pointed to Lebanon, a state not historically viewed as a success but at present appears to be one of the most stable in region. This raises the importance of power sharing between groups and recognizing group identity to prevent sectarian war.

Current revolts have been against state dominance and demonstrate the powerful desire of people to have a say in their future. The Middle East has been ruled by Arab nationalism. Going forward, the question is whether a system based on power sharing resolves or accentuates differences.

Shehadi pointed out the fallacy of the idea of a religiously and ethnically cohesive state. This concept comes from the Treaty of Westphalia, provoked 400 years of war in Europe and ultimately failed. The legacy of these wars, particularly World War II, is a taboo about thinking in groups. Shehadi argued for moving past this taboo to a more open dialogue. Power sharing has flaws and should not be static; Shehadi argued that any static system creates problems. According to Shehadi the secular state in its Ataturk Turkish conception is the epitome of static. What is required in this time of transition is adaptive and creative thinking that draws on the longer history of the Middle East in looking to the future.

Back to Roundtables >