Federalism in the Arab World

The Arab ideological responses combined a mix and match of pan-Islamism, pan-Arabism, statism, authoritarianism, liberalism and socialism. This article is proposing a different “ism”, federalism, with the belief that it could be more successful where others have failed.

The application of federalism in the Arab world is important for four reasons.

First, on a pan-Arab level, it may be able to open a new path for regional cooperation and integration that has traditionally been divided between two poles: a unitary and centralized system on one hand, as envisaged in the Arab nationalism project, and a very loose confederacy on the other, as manifested in the League of Arab States.

The continuous failure of these two models in achieving the tasks they set for themselves, largely blamed on the ill execution of policies rather than the suitability of the models themselves, opens a window to allow us to examine whether these models were appropriate in the first place, regardless of how they were implemented, and whether an alternative model based on federalism could be more successful.

Second, federalism is currently being applied in three Arab states: Iraq, Sudan and Somalia. Many local and international observers see the solution to the chronic problems facing these countries is in adopting federal arrangements to ensure healthy power sharing, decentralization, more respect for human rights and democratization.

Third, half of the Arab states, those that are in Africa, are already members of the African Union, an emerging federal system formed in 2000. To what extent could a constituent unit be part of two federations is still an open question.

Finally, because federalism is being forcefully proposed by the “West”, especially in Iraq under occupation and in Sudan under sanctions, there is the danger of it becoming stigmatized as “imperial” or “foreign”, turning it into another unneeded conflict zone, as has been the case with democracy. Federalism in the Arab world should not become another missed opportunity due to lack of or mis-understanding.

In particular, federalism could be a very effective tool in conflict management/resolution. I will briefly address three areas where federalism could be particularly relevant in the Arab world.

1. The Arab Israeli conflict

The complexity of this particular conflict with all its historical, religious, political, legal, cultural and socio-economic aspects doesn’t need much emphasis. At the heart of the problem are two contradictory narratives about the self and the other. For the Arabs, Israel is a colonial settler project that needs to be resisted. For the Jews, it is a nation building project that needs to be protected. There is no easy way to compromise and the dilemmas of resistance or coexistence continue to shape the different solutions to this intractable conflict.

The crux of the conflict is the dispute over a particular piece of land. History, religion and law have been used by each party to justify claims and counterclaims, the most serious one being that the other is just an “imagined community”. Solutions varied between sharing the land within one state or dividing the land into two separate states possibly with some confederal arrangements.

The most obvious and viable option would be to establish a bi-national, bi-lingual, bi-communal and bi-state federation composed of an Israeli state/province and a Palestinian state/province, with Jerusalem as the seat of the federal government. A two state solution, even with shared confederal links, may leave both parties with genuine security concerns and continuing tension as each community, dissatisfied with the “half” it got, looks at the “half” it lost.

A federal solution employing elements of simultaneous “shared rule” and “self-rule” is the most viable option.

A federal solution employing elements of simultaneous “shared rule” and “self-rule” is the most viable option. It will give each party a sense of territorial identity, with rights entrenched in a constitution not amended by one group attaining a majority in a unitary state. Having one federal union overseeing both the lands of Israel and Palestine will allow each member of this union to claim the whole land as theirs and at the same time guarantee for each community a specific separate territorial state with their preferred applicable laws.

2. Economic development and integration

Obstacles to regional economic integration and development fall between structures and policies. The structure factor refers to the disparities in economic power and population and the similarities of modes of production, while the policies factor refers to the political conflicts, policy choices, lack of coordination and international pressure. In terms of GDP, GDP per capita and population, the GDP of Saudi Arabia is 250 times that of Mauritania, the GDP per capita of Qatar is 90 times that of Mauritania, and the population of Egypt is almost 100 times that of Qatar.

Fiscal and asymmetrical federalism could provide a framework and mechanisms for dealing with such disparities which are or were also common to other federal systems such as Canada, Germany, Australia, Nigeria and India. The Arab states’ disparity in wealth and population could be translated, within an Arab federal union, into asymmetrical representation, voting power, more control of natural resources, different taxation systems and social benefits, opt-in or opt-out options or time bound restrictions.

The arguments for the economic benefits from a federal union could be traced back to the Federalist. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 11, 12 and 13, outlines the basic utility of the Union in commerce, revenue and taxation. Other benefits include the harmonization of government policies, reduction of bureaucratic administrative costs, diversification of productions, and internal equalization. The UNDP Arab Human Development Report 2002, citing high population growth rates, rising unemployment, and modest economic growth coupled with increasingly intense competition from emerging markets in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia, has identified regional economic cooperation as essential for national regional development.

The following paragraph best illustrates the UNDP approach to economic development in the region:

No Arab country alone can adequately achieve dramatic social and economic progress based on diversification of sources of income and acquisition of competitive capabilities in the fields of accumulated knowledge and industry. However, by coming together, Arab countries can reap the benefits of size and scale, diversify their combined economies, and open up opportunities for investment that would be unavailable in the absence of coordinated efforts and cooperation.

Drawing from the EU experience, federalism is the political framework to implement plans for cooperation and integration.

3. Minorities and Diversity

The complexity of this problem becomes evident when differences among these minority groups are taken into account. Despite their common minority status they differ in their composition, demands, strength and relations to the majority. Taking the variables of language, ethnicity and religion, some minorities differ only in one aspect, some differ in multiple.

Some question the legitimacy of the state while others only question the legitimacy of the regime or the government in power. Some have had civil wars while others experienced frictions. Some were always ruled by the majority while others who were the minority ruled over an absolute majority, and there are cases where there was no clear majority. There are some who refuse to be labelled as a minority, and those who are a minority in one setting but a majority in a different setting. Some have received more external suuport than others.

The solution is complex because it needs to involve more than one type of solution to accommodate the different varieties of minorities’ demands

The solution to this problem is complex because it needs to involve more than one type of solution (recognition and acceptance, participation and democracy, consociational techniques, federalism) to accommodate the different varieties of minorities’ demands. Federalism may be able to offer a better framework to manage the question of minorities as evident in other federal cases in which diversity was an issue whether in multinational, multiethnic or multilingual societies. Federalism allows and promotes overlapping multiple identities to function within unity, and depending on the specific demands asymmetrical and non-territorial federalism could also allow different systems of representation and participation.

These solutions are not without possible tensions as evident in other multinational or multiethnic federations like Canada, Nigeria, India and Belgium. The aim of these mechanisms is not to solve the conflict but to manage it, giving minorities their due rights in terms of respect, recognition and role in public space while at the same time preserving the unity of the state.

I would like to end with a quote from Hourani, one of the leading modern scholars on minorities in the Arab world, who observed that:

In the long run there is only one way in which the problem of minorities can be solved: majority and minorities must form a ’community’ with one another, must learn to respect and trust one another, and on the basis of trust and respect work together for common ends... This does not mean that the differences between them will completely disappear, for unity does not necessarily imply uniformity;... It means that both majority and minorities must be conscious that their loyalties and duties do not stop at the limits of their racial or religious group, and that every human community must, if it would avoid falling into mortal sin, make itself the servant of something higher than itself.