Problems in Middle Eastern Politics - Essay Example

To What Extent Can Some Problems in Middle Eastern Politics Be Blamed On Colonial or Imperial Intervention? Introduction To a greater extend, the colonial master played and still play a key role in the existing problems in their colonial bases. The Middle East was largely a colony of the British and the French masters who established some of the existing political dimensions that still exists currently.1 The existent colonial legacy formed the scratching points for the constant social and political affairs currently witnessed in the Middle East. The recently witnessed political turmoil and mayhem across the Middle East bring in its wake the colonial legacy left behind by the colonial and imperial powers.2 This essay therefore seeks to assess to what extent the currently witnessed problems in the Middle East can be traced to the colonial periods. It takes into account that despite that fact that colonial rule in the Middle East ended many years ago, the tendrils of its legacy evokes the currently domestic problems in those states.3 This paper unearths the political institutions, systems and governing policies instituted by the colonial and imperial powers as a way of assessing the root causes of the modern problems in the colonized states in the Middle East. Baxter and Akbarzadeh noted that the so called “Middle East” was largely a westernized invention, right form its leaderships style to its forms of governance inclusive of the territorial boundaries.4 After the First World War, the colonial masters- Britain and France - drew arbitrary boundaries which later were developed to give birth to the current Middle Eastern countries. At first the colonizers-the British and the French barely noticed that their arbitrary created boundaries sliced through cultures and to a greater extend forced antagonistic tribes into one national bed.5 The created boundaries were intentioned for easy control of the colonized by the colonizers. The structure of the Middle East states, created by the colonial powers had a bigger share to blame for the turmoil political atmosphere in the region. This is because the British and the French organized their colonies to consist of disparate groups who had no previous history of being governed as one entity.6 A good example of such states created from disparate groups is the current Iraq which was formed as a product of merging three Ottoman provinces that had little factors in common. This lack of commonality created lines of political weaknesses in their merger as one entity. Put differently, the European and Soviet imperialist created perilous situations that in one way or another encouraged and flamed ethnic rivalry. A good reference example is when the Soviet imperialist assumed control of Ferghana Valley which is located in the Central Asia. They created boundaries that ended up separating same ethnic group of people namely, the Tajiks into different and numerous multi-ethnic regions resulting into continuous conflicts.7 Further, the colonizers appointed rulers who collaborated to their colonial overlords, thereby creating a system of governance and the leadership style which was submissive to the colonial demands.8 Additionally, the colonial masters chose their territorial rulers from minority group as a way of creating a lasting dependence on the masters. In this regards, Ann Stoler pointed out that the French recruited many of the then persecuted Alawite Minority in the army and officers when they were facing a nationalist insurgency in Syria back I 1930s and 1940s.9 This practice of favouring a particular ethnic, racial or cultural group over the others in the colonial society led to unequal distribution of resources and unequal opportunity to governing posts. The result was rivalry between these favoured minority group and the majority of the land. Moreover, since the minorities were the favoured lot for government positions during the colonial period, which was a practical way of the colonizers ensuring lasting dominance and intervention in the colonized regions.10 That is to say the colonial and imperial powers would continue to intervene in case of conflicts in the colonized regions. These factors which were influenced by the colonial overlords formed the strong bases that political mayhem erupted from especially when the locals sought to get self-governance and autonomy. Notably, riots erupted in the Middle East as a result of the locals demanding self-governance. For instance Muslim Brotherhood, a radicalized group of Muslims which have since hit the headlines arose at the time as an attempt to repulse Western and Soviet colonial overlord.11.Moreover, the current rising tides of the Islamic fundamentalism have its causes pointed to the discrediting of the Westernization by the Middle East states as the secular republics morphed into somehow military dictatorial sects.12 These reactions to the imperial rule has in a way escalated the social and political instability in the Middle East since the locals sought to detach themselves from the Western domination and influence. Stemming from the type of leadership that the colonial and imperial government instituted, a chain of dependence on the colonizers has in a way ensured colonizers’ always intervention. This is evident especially in the military support of the Middle East, specifically on their war against the war lords-Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden - as well as the civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.13 These interventions by the imperial rulers have inhibited the Middle Eastern countries to develop independently. Consequently, the colonial powers have ensured their domination, although more indirectly. Military intervention, Reynolds argued should be resorted into only as a means of buying time and space for political solution to take effect.14 In other words, a military intervention should be used to win peace through social, economic and political initiative once conflict has subsided. The author also noted that such military intervention aggravated politically, often do not take into account the severe humanitarian impact of the intervening strategies on the local communities and the existing institutions such as education systems.15 As a result, though well intentioned, the plight of the local people is much aggravated and situation of the locals worsened. Thus the colonial masters’ domination which often is disguised as political intervention contributes majorly for the many problems currently witnessed in the Middle East. The territorial boundaries created by the colonial powers led to the merger of two main religious sects in the middle east-Shia and the Sunni.16 This enabled these sectarian communities which could not see eye to eye to have a commonality. However, after the gradual collapse of Ottoman Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the created boundaries reignited the glowing embers of hatred between the Shia and Sunni. The conflict between these two Islamic religious sects cannot in any way be attributed to the colonial domination but it is purely domestic. However, the colonial intervention which has played a key role in quenching the ever growing civil war between these sects has reduced the Middle East countries’ abilities of solving their own problems independently.17 Further as Selvik and Stenslie noted, in Islamic world religious and political matters are considered as one, the religious conflict between the Shia and the Sunni was basically politically motivated. Consequently, the political animosity of the religious sects goaded to the national political instability of the regions as each sect sought for itself a national governance.18 Moreover, the partitioning of the Middle East into colonial territories especially among the two major colonial powers-the French and the British - was motivated by on the availability of the black gold in the area.19 Crude oil, has since been the enduring pull for the colonial masters back to their once colonies as they attempt to get a share of the precious liquid. Middle East is known to have rich deposition of the black gold and so many Western countries tend to salvage their way into the Eastern regions, many disguised as humanitarian and political interventions. However, the Middle Eastern countries have known the Western intention of exploiting their resources instead and so they tend to resist what they perceive as western domination on its ‘white washed face’.20 This regardless of the deplorable situation caused by the constant civil war in the region, the bottom line for the colonialists and imperialists is that their interest is not comprised in any way. Behr additionally observed that the hostile and instable political situation in the Middle East countries can be considered a plus for the colonial powers. This is because in the event that the warring nations are overwhelmed, they would call their colonial masters for assistance in exchange of black gold.21 This search of the status quo especially by the colonial powers over their colonies has made no significant step towards seeing to it that the Middle East countries attain full independence and endurable peace.22 In other words, the constant political mayhem in the Middle East is but a mining site for the colonial powers. Further, the European interference in the Middle East can also be attributed to the competitive nature that superior colonial powers- the French, The British and even the Italian struggled to secure their national interests in the region purposefully for their growing economic enterprises.23 Some scholars have also observed that the colonial and Soviet ruling powers often used policies that violated human rights in order to maintain their status, wealth and privileges in their colonized regions.24 These unjust policies used by the colonial masters somehow subjected the colonized population to deplorable situations. The colonized communities lost their lands, natural resources, their cultural and religious identities and some even lost their lives in their attempt to resist.25 Today, this problem is still experienced in the post-colonial and post-Soviet imperial governments since those in the governing authorities adopted similar unjust colonial practices and policies as means of ensuring their dominant status.26 To add, Behr observed that the marginalized populations during the colonial and imperial period have continued to be marginalized even after independence by the postcolonial governments and their resources denied them.27 Moreover, the postcolonial governments have since used more ruthless governing policies that have disregarded to a larger extent the human rights. This can be attributed to the reason that the postcolonial governments are using extreme methods to ensure their dominance over the majority. This violence traces back its roots to the colonial system of appointing the minority into position of power who after independence had to use hard methods to still dominate and rule.28 Further, during the colonial and imperial periods the governmental structures and systems in the Middle Eastern countries were in most part controlled and operated from the abroad (the colonial masters’ home countries) or by the selected and favoured few.29 Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens summed this up by postulating that the colonial and Soviet satellite societies were more repressive and undemocratic in nature during the colonial and imperial period.30 As a result when the Middle East states gained independence, the post-colonial governments lacked the experts and the necessary expertise together with the relevant institutions and structures to rule. The lack or inadequate expertise and relevant institutions and structures led to improper creation of governance systems that in comparison to the colonial methods were indeed inadequate and backward.31 Again, the colonial masters used these as their bridges to ensure strings of dominance since in case the colonized needed their help they would do so in exchange of something or liberties to operate within the colonized territories.32 Moreover, the appointed leaders would be educated abroad in their colonial masters’ countries as a way of buying their loyalty and so make them colonial puppets in their postcolonial governments. Conclusively therefore, the colonial and imperial powers used different approaches to ensure that the colonized states remain dependent on their colonial and imperial masters even after liberation. This lack of independence in right sense of the word has reduced the once colonized states’ abilities to solve their own problems and domestic issues. Again the colonizers approaches have accelerated and aggravated the already worsening situation of the colonized states by always availing their disguised interventions. Attaining complete independent by the Middle Eastern countries would be a beginning step towards restoring order and peace in the regions. Consequently, to a greater extent some problems experienced in the Middle East can be attributed to the colonial and imperial intervention. Bibliography Baxter Kylie & Akbarzadeh Shahram. US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Roots of Anti- Americanism. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. Baylis, John, Smith, Shahram & Owens, Patricia (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, 5th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Behr, Timo. France, Germany and Europes Middle East Dilemma: The Impact of National Foreign Policy Traditions on Europes Middle East Policy. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 2009. Metcalfe, Beverley & Mimouni, Fouad. Leadership Development in the Middle East. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011. Hearn, Jonathan. Rethinking Nationalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Olimat Muhamad. China and the Middle East: From Silk Road to Arab Spring. London: Routledge, 2013. Podeh, Elie. The Politics of National Celebrations in the Arab Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Rear, Michael. Intervention, Ethnic Conflict and State-Building in Iraq: A Paradigm for the Post-Colonial State. London: Routledge, 2008. Reynolds, David. One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945, London: Penguin Books, 2000. Selvik, Kjetil & Stenslie, Stig. Stability and Change in the Modern Middle East. London: I.B.Tauris, 2011. Sorenson, David S. An introduction to the Modern East: History, Religion, Political Economy, Politics. Colorado: Westview Press, 2013. Stoler, Ann Laura. Imperial Debris: On Ruins and Ruination. Durham: Duke University Press, 2013. Watenpaugh, Keith David. Being Modern in the Middle East: Revolution, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Arab Middle Class. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Read More