Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Latest

An overview of competing ideologies in the Arab world

Here’s a list of the most important political ideologies which have been prominent in the Arab world in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Avatar

Published

on

The crises in the Arab world are as much about competing political ideologies as they are about resources, territorial ambition, tribalism and religion. Many in the west claim to speak against various Arab ideologies without actually knowing what they are speaking against. It is important not to deprive Arabs of their voice in the wider battle of ideologies that many other peoples have dealt with throughout history.

Here is a list of important political ideologies in the Arab world.

Ba’athism:

Ba’athism is an intellectual and political movement founded by the Damascene scholar Michel Aflaq. Ba’athism essentially posits the view that socialism is the best method by which the Arab world can liberate itself in the post-colonial world. However, Ba’athists reject both Marxism-Leninism and the social democratic model of Europe.

Ba’athists apply socialist principles to the unique historical, cultural, economic and geopolitical conditions of the Arab world. Whilst secular in nature, Ba’athism is not atheistic and incorporates various teachings of Islam into its ideology. Ba’athism however does not see itself as an exclusively Islamic movement as indeed many Christians have been party members. Aflaq himself was a Christian.

Ba’athism first came to the fore of political power in 1963 during Iraq’s Ramadan Revolution and Syria’s 8th of March Revolution. However, internal Ba’athist fighting plagued the movement. One of the biggest issues was the question of Pan-Arabism versus a ‘socialism in one state’ model.

The Ba’athist government of Iraq was overthrown in November of 1963 to be replaced by forces sympathetic to Nasserism. The Ba’ath party however would re-claim power during the 17 July Revolution of 1968 under the leadership of Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr.

In Syria things were if anything, more chaotic. Inter-party civil war caused a split in the global Ba’athist movement in 1966. Older Ba’athists who had favoured pan-Aarabism were violently ousted in favour of the leadership of hardliner Salah Jadid. Jadid increased the militancy of the movement and fully abandoned notions of Nassersim.

When Jidid attempted to militarily engage Jordan over the Hashemite Kingdom’s expulsion of Palestinians, another inter-Ba’athist struggle emerged. The more conservative Hafez al-Assad proved to be victorious and led a so-called ‘Corrective movement’ against Jidid’s supporters. Syria’s current Ba’athist President is Hafez’s son, Bashar al-Assad.

Since Saddam Hussein’s fall from power in Iraq where he took over from al-Bakar in 1979, Syria remains the only Arab nation with a Ba’athist government.

Nasserism:

Named for Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Nasserism strives first and foremost for pan-Arabism/Arab unity. Nasserism encourages a mixed economy of state-ownership of major industry and a regulated agricultural sector with local free enterprise. Nasser’s Egypt was secular and oversaw the arrest of Islamists including those in the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the world’s first Islamist parties.

Nasserism’s zenith was in the late 1950s. After nationalising the Suez Canal in 1956, Britain, France and Israel jointly invaded Egypt. Nasser’s skillful wooing of both Soviet and American diplomats led the two-superpowers to force the invading countries to call off the war. Nasser can in many ways lay claim to striking what would be the decisive blow against British Imperial power.

The following year came another victory when Syria and Egypt became a single state called The United Arab Republic. After Iraq overthrew its Hashemite monarchy in the 14 July Revolution of 1958, there were hopes that Iraq too would join the United Arab Republic. This, however, was not to be. The republican Iraqi leader Abd al-Karim Qasim opposed such a union. Qasim was himself later overthrow by Ba’athists in 1963.

Nasser had a final minor victory when his republican forces toppled the Saudi, Jordanian and western back Yemeni royalists in the North Yemen Civil War which began in 1962. However by 1967, Nasser’s fortunes faded. Egyptian/join-Arab defeat in the 1967 Six Days War led Israel to occupy the Sinai Peninsula. That same year after continual harassment from British irregulars, Egypt withdrew from The Yemen Arab Republic.

Nasser’s legacy remains powerful. For many Arabs, he represented the first and last best hope of a secular, modern, mixed economic Arab nationalist. Few figures as powerful as Nasser have emerged in the decades subsequent to his early death in 1970.

Communism:

Communism in the context of the Arab world is unique insofar as it has been a deeply influential movement but has only ever properly held power in one state, The People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, aka South Yemen. One could also say that Algeria’s socialist FLN owed must to Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Communist parties were once deeply influential forces in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. Howeverб as Ba’athist and Nasserist forces consolidated, they viewed the Communist Party as a threat and at times it was severely supressed.

Interestingly, the Soviet Union, whilst sympathetic to Arab communist parties, refrained from fomenting leftist revolutions in the Arab world and instead was generally happy dealing with Nasserist and Ba’athist rulers. The communist Palestinian People’s Party ought to be a stronger force than it is, but by joining the corrupt PLO in 1987, progress has been greatly retarded.

Greenism/Third International Theory:

Muammar Gaddafi was the most potent and original intellectual force in Arab politics since the death of Nasser. His Green Book outlined how repressed peoples could liberate themselves from colonialism and build a society that rejected the dogmas of both capitalism and communism.

The Green book is deeply communitarian in its values and economic organisation. Whilst deeply original, parts of Gaddafi’s economic model were inspired by  Tito’s ‘third way’ socialism in Yugoslavia.

Initially, Gaddafi sought to unite the Arab world under the Third International Theory, but when Arabs of all political backgrounds proved to be increasingly intransigent, he focused on promulgating his theories in Africa where many post-colonel and under-developed countries were often receptive. Nelson Mandela was a staunch admirer of Gaddafi throughout his life.

Third International Theory is part revolutionary, part socialist, part secular and part spiritual. It is a hybrid ideology that is unique to history.

Royalism:

The Arab world has its fair shares of monarchies/royal states including Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the UAE. Whilst royalism generally only becomes ideological when it is forced to complete against another ideology, one can attempt to look for exceptions in the Arab world.

Some monarchs like the Hashemites are seen as a stabilising force because of their blood-relation to the Prophet Muhammad. Yet this wasn’t enough to save King Faisal of Iraq who was violently overthrown in 1958. Other monarchies like Saudi Arabia are so deeply immoderate that they cannot be called anything but a force for evil. The House of Saud’s sponsorship of terrorism throughout the Arab world is a great stain on the world.

Islamism:

Islamic politics in the Middle East have become more prominent in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st century. Many see Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979 as inspiring forms of Islamism in the Arab world. The oldest such organisation is the Muslim Brotherhood which was founded in Egypt in 1928.

Islamism in general, rejects many aspects of the modern world and is violently hostile to secularism. Nasserist and Ba’athist regimes have frequently suppressed Islamism in its many guises.

Recently, the extremist Gulf States of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have funded Islamist groups including and especially terrorist groups in otherwise secular Arab states. The current war in Syria is best described as Ba’athist war against Islamism as represented by ISIS and al-Qaeda.

The Arab world’s disunity is partly due to disagreements over a suitable ideology or group of competing ideologies around which Arab political regimes and movements can be structured.

Europe generally has conservative, liberal and socialist parties. America has the Republicans and Democrats. The Arabs have their versions of ideologies which suit them, but internal squabbling has made progress difficult. If Islam fills this gap, the Arab world may not recover for generations.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Trump Has Gifted “No More Wars” Policy Position To Bernie Sanders (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 148.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss how US President Donald Tump appears to have ceded his popular 2016 ‘no more wars’ campaign message and policy position to Bernie Sanders and any other US 2020 candidate willing to grad onto a non-interventionist approach to the upcoming Democrat primaries.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Is Bernie Stealing Trump’s ‘No More Wars’ Issue?” by Patrick J. Buchanan…


The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016.

“The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars… I agree with that,” Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday’s town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Then turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added:

“Mr. President, tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: Sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country.”

Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.

Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of the GOP led by Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.

But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a “dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities.”

With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump’s veto, that should be the end of the matter.

It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the “no-more-wars” theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president?

Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing “Trump’s endless wars” in the Middle East? Because that is where he is headed.

In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia, lost.

Yet, in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq War and an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and get out of these Middle East wars.

Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker — not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.

Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.

He declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which Iran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.

Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. Embassy there, closed the consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi Netanyahu’s threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and castigating the “right-wing” Netanyahu regime.

Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the troops are still there.

Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan’s 1987 INF treaty that outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Caracas — ostensibly to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts — Trump, drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to “get out.”

Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the left wing of his party, and by Sanders, who voted “no” on the Iraq War that Biden supported.

The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.

And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new bipartisan majority.

Prediction: By the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have captured the “no-more-wars” political high ground that Candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.

Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website? Let us know how we are doing – Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Over 200 killed, hundreds injured in series of blasts at Sri Lankan hotels & churches

A series of bombings hit churches and hotels across Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, killing more than 200 people.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


A series of eight explosions rocked Catholic churches and luxury hotels in Sri Lanka as Christians began Easter Sunday celebrations, with over 200 killed and hundreds injured, media reported, citing police.

The blasts started at around 8:45am local time at St. Anthony’s Church in Colombo and St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo, a Catholic-majority town outside of the capital. The Zion Church in Batticaloa on the eastern coast was also targeted. At around the same time, the Shangri-La, Cinnamon Grand and Kingsbury five-star hotels were also hit, police confirmed.

Two more explosions happened later in the day, targeting two more locations in Colombo. All attacks appear to have been coordinated.

At least 207 people were killed, Reuters reported, citing police. More than 450 were injured in the attacks.

Alleged footage of the aftermath, shared on social media, showed chaos and large-scale destruction inside at least one of the churches.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Mike Pompeo reveals true motto of CIA: ‘We lied, we cheated, we stole’ (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 147.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a look at a Texas A&M University speech, and subsequent interview, with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The former CIA Director admitted, ‘as an aside’ to the question asked, that the Intelligence agency he headed up before being appointed as the top US Diplomat had a motto “we lied, we cheated, we stole”…which, according to Pompeo, contained entire CIA training courses based on ‘lying, cheating and stealing.’

Pompeo finally speaks some truth.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending