Almost all West Asian states are young and fragile. They are vulnerable because their state institutions are weak and their national identities are underdeveloped. Internal resilience is hampered by the following negative factors: low legitimacy of political regimes, localised identities, the activity of non-state actors, and the lack of sustainable economic growth. Internal vulnerabilities are exacerbated by the impact of negative external factors, such as regional conflicts, foreign intervention, hybrid wars, and global economic shocks, writes Nikolay Surkov specially for the 15th Middle East conference of the Valdai Discussion Club.
The problem of internal legitimacy arises not from a lack of democracy, but from the failure of governments to fulfil their social contract. The population in most Middle Eastern countries does not demand Western democracy, but expects the state to provide for an acceptable standard of living. Accordingly, economic growth is a key condition for state legitimacy and internal stability.
The localisation of identities occurs as national identity erodes. National identity is being replaced by ethnic, religious, and tribal identities. The destruction or absence of national identity leads to civil wars, separatism, and foreign intervention. During the Arab Spring, chaos engulfed countries where stable national identities had not yet formed. One of the key conditions for post-conflict recovery is the construction of a new identity that can unite the population and transform it into a nation.
The weakness of states and the intervention of external forces lead to an increased role for non-state actors. As a result, hybrid regimes have emerged in some countries in the region, where the state and a powerful non-state actor coexist. There are examples of non-state actors coming to power, such as in Yemen and Syria. To counter the threats posed by non-state actors, it is necessary either to promptly integrate them into state structures or to strengthen recognised governments and control external interference.
Economic growth requires not only sound economic and fiscal policies but also regional stability. Without it, governments waste valuable resources on armies and weapons rather than on development. This necessitates a regional security architecture that can help reduce tensions and limit the intervention of extra-regional actors, who often destabilise the region for their own interests.
In terms of the sustainability of political systems, the Arab world is heterogeneous. The Gulf monarchies currently enjoy the most favourable conditions for internal stability. Societies and political systems in these countries are evolving, and modern institutions are emerging. In small monarchies, authorities are fulfilling the social contract. At the same time, traditional mechanisms for maintaining stability are functioning well. In a number of Gulf countries, strong national identities have successfully developed.
In the Levant and Maghreb, political systems have proven more vulnerable. It is difficult to find countries in these subregions that were not affected by mass protests during the first or second waves of the “Arab Spring”. The main challenges there are poverty, economic and food crises, and radical groups exploiting socio-economic problems to recruit young people. Therefore, issues of economic development, poverty alleviation, and unemployment are becoming more pressing. Governments are forced to expend extensive resources combating radical ideologies.
The experience of the last decade and a half has shown that the most resilient political regimes are those with strong traditional foundations, which are also capable of flexibility, adaptation, and providing an adequate response to the needs of the population. However, the problem of regional tensions and systematic external interference remains unresolved. There are numerous examples of respectable states in the region or outside powers supporting separatism or even extremist groups. As long as the vulnerable states of the Middle East are forced to operate in an extremely unfavourable geopolitical environment, it is difficult to expect internal stability. Expecting responsible behaviour from great powers guided by the logic of the struggle for global influence and their own interests would be naive. However, if the countries of the region recognise that de-escalation is in their shared interest and commit to creating the necessary mechanisms and formats, then, over time, one of the powerful factors hindering progressive development and internal stability will disappear.
