Address the following questions in 1-2 paragraphs:
Why do you think that the history of the Middle East and North Africa before WWI matters in understanding modern politics in the region? What legacies did pre-colonial institutions leave that shape political behavior today? How did Western colonial intrusions up to WWI affect modern political outcomes?
Why do you think that the history of the Middle East and North Africa before WWI matters in understanding modern politics in the region? What legacies did pre-colonial institutions leave that shape political behavior today? How did Western colonial intrusions up to WWI affect modern political outcomes?
Studying early Middle Eastern history is like watching a montage of empires rise and fall; the Byzantines, the Sasnians, the Ummayyads and Abbasids, the Seljuks, the Safavids, the Ottomans; the extent of sovereign territory has pushed west to Rabat and north to the gates of Vienna; the nature of each empire adjusting to the political and economic movements of the times.
By the late 19th century, it was clear that the balance of international power had shifted to the West (Gelvin, 71). Politically savvy and aware of growing external threats to the region, the Egyptians, the Ottomans and the Persians began implementing a strategic plan of ‘defensive developmentalism’.
Defensive developmentalism was designed to consolidate state power and bolster the regional economy in the face of rising Western powers. Characterized by military reform, tax reform, increased cultivation of cash crops and basic infrastructural developments, defensive developmentalism reflects the first step in a century of political reform.
According to Weber, a state requires a “monopoly over the legitimate use of force over a given extent of territory”. Defensive developmentalism initiated the state-building process in the Middle East by consolidating power and reasserting central authority.
It is important to understand that this widespread political reform was inspired by Middle Easterners ‘looking West’. The intelligensia and upper echelon of ‘enlightened thinkers’ continued to pursue Western education, sparking an on-going dialogue about the direction of the Arab world, and the structure of the Arab state, in the early 20th century. Mainstream Muslim society began to question how Islamic traditions would integrate with a shifting 20th century world order. The integration of ulamas and the turuq and shura in the early push for Constitutionalism created a mixed narrative of Western democratic ideology and Islamic theocratic tradition.
Many Muslims believed that the success of the European state hinged on development and centralization. While Constitutionalism, in a secular, Western sense, eventually failed in the Ottoman empire. It set the stage for the long-standing political culture in the region, allowing people to see themselves as citizens, rather than subjects. That thread of independence is still visible today, perhaps blossoming for the first time in the 21st century during the Arab Spring. Indeed, pre-colonial state consolidation continues to inform the demands of the 20th century and the re-emerging call for democracy in the Arab world today.
Defensive Developmentalism swept the three standing Middle Eastern dynasties in the late 19th century. I
Understanding the history of the Middle East and North Africa is extremely important to further our understanding the regional politics today. Beyond the legacies discussed in class, such as centralized states, imperial cities and contested zones, I see long lasting political ramifications emerging from the economic manipulations by European states, citizens, and perhaps even the opening of global trade through colonialism. This ranged from concessions, such as the Petroleum concession granted to William Know d’Arcy in 1901, to extreme demands and restrictions placed upon tariffs and taxation. While guaranteeing short-term needs for cash, these obviously had long-term political ramifications. A government without control over the production of their natural resources, especially one as profitable as oil, are far less secure, effective and stable. Other examples of economic manipulation include the expansion of cash crop development, and the discouragement of industries that might compete with pre-established European ones. Not only did these economic developments influence long term progress, they also led to further complications, such as heavy debt and dependence on global prices and demand. The effects of the crushing amount of debt, accrued through a variety of means, including as repercussions for cancelled concessions, a reliance of global prices and cash crops, and the pressure to “modernize” through defensive developmentalism, are still apparent today.
Another historical legacy spurred by colonial influence was increased sectarian conflict. The economic advantages offered to many non-Muslim associates of European nations through berats or the Islahat Fermani increased tensions, and many times “fixed the connection between politics and religious allegiance” (Gelvin 99). This expansion of religious involvement in politics, and the spread of constitutionalism is still apparent and active today.
The history of the Middle East and North Africa before World War I was shaped by the stressed importance and power of militaries, and the constant shifting and growth of different empires. With every problem, the solution often seemed to first be military reform. Warlords overcame decentralized governments just as the weaker governments more recently have been overthrown or questioned by revolutions or opposition groups. Being such a large presence in Middle Eastern history, the Ottoman Empire especially shaped today’s politics with its tactics to constantly expand and centralize their authority through defensive developmentalism (Gelvin). Its first step was military reform, proving a top priority to be national security. This step parallels modern government reforms in the Middle East that too maintain internal power, using armed officials to keep the population in check. The Ottomans sometimes even trained elite military leaders who ended up turning against the very government who they worked for, something too seen today as the loyalty of recent military groups has come into question.
Western colonial intrusions leading up to World War I helped create the hostile relationship that exists between the east and the west today. Britain’s constant involvement in the Middle East before WWI created tensions as it took advantage of resources such as Egyptian cotton to fuel their textile industry. They prevented Egypt from starting their own industries to preserve their own economic interests. After the American Civil War ended, demand for cotton in Egypt declined, and they needed to borrow money from Europe to keep up their cotton productions, resulting in debt and a further European dependency (Gelvin). Now, many countries in the west, including the US, are dependent on the Middle East for resources like oil, and Middle Eastern countries are enjoying their positions now that they are on the opposite side of the spectrum, controlling the trade and industry.
In addition, the presence of Islam in the history of the Middle East has certainly influenced how countries exist and are governed today. During the 18th and 19th centuries, there was a movement to reform society and reform Islam after it’s decline with intentions of standing up to threatening western theologies. As a result, today Islam is written into the laws of countries including Syria and Iran. The coincidence of religion in governance that existed during the development of the middle east still remains a prominent characteristic of the Middle East today.
The pre-WWI history is critical to today’s political ramification of the Middle East and North Africa, because the people in the region continually live in a collective memory of the past. Such memory encompasses a religious split between Shi’a and Sunni since Muhammad’s death in 632; the alternation of several dynasties that repeatedly blurred geographic boundaries; the ultimate degradation of Ottoman Empire that fostered diversified political structures in the peripheries; as well as Western influence that encouraged defensive developmentalism, which in return introduced further colonial intrusions. Impressively, these pieces of memory all draw a parallel line between the past and the present – today’s conflicts over religion, border, political institutions and Western-Islamic relations are largely but an extension of the pre-WWI history. Unless we manage to rewrite a substantial portion of the Middle Eastern North African past, there is no easy solution to various contentions in the region today.
Importantly, the Western colonial intrusions up to WWI have shaped the modern Middle Eastern politics in two significant ways. First, the colonization has inevitably brought in various western technologies, institutions, even lifestyle, into the region, which indirectly fosters its development and globalization process. Second, within the context of the U.S. involvement in the Middle East today, we can easily observe that the collective consciousness of Islam and non-Islam division has been greatly enhanced throughout the colonial history. The tension between the two groups today certainly has noteworthy association with the colonial past. Echoing the statement in the beginning and agreeing with Gelvin’s thesis, modern politics of the Middle East and North Africa evolves from its history, and we often need to consult history to find the best remedy for the problems.
In a discussion of the current state of any political body it is important to understand not only that nation’s political history but also its cultural history as they are often intimately intertwined. When looking at pre-colonial Middle East and North Africa that their fractured present has roots in a disjointed past. Just has many nations in Western Europe and North America many nations in the Middle East have strong ties to their past and are often trying to recreate the political stability and cultural and economic prowess enjoyed in the Middle Ages. Because the beginning of this era’s dominance began with the Emergence of Islam in Medina, the community established there and in Mecca afterwards is often held as the ideal community by many Islamic sects and thus religion and Islam have remained integral variables constantly in play in any political construction. It seems that as a result and because Islam is a subjective religion, open to many different interpretations and producing many different branches, it seems that this same diverse and factionalized environment permeates the political structure of the late 18th century through the early 20th. I thought one interesting faction which arose in this time period was the turuq movement, in which Muslims living in Persia, Egypt, Syria, and North Africa formed a network of informal clubs or study groups in which they try to discuss and find solutions to common problems, using the Qur’an and hadith to reestablish a “sense of community” and determine “The rules for ethical/legal conduct” in their societies (Gelvin, 137).
This small example of a pre-colonial institution which displays an interesting intersection of what is a classic political theme, the existence small communal/political factions or groups, with the rich cultural and religious history of the Middle East and North Africa. These turuq’s made me thing of the social groups that Sam Huntington said were integral to democratic government, small informal clubs where citizens could relate, develop a sense of communal and national responsibility, and foster individualism and the political activism necessary in a healthy democratic system. But what happens when these groups are not only empowered to “reestablish a sense of community” but also feel capable of determine the rules for ethical and legal conduct? It is interesting to see Gelvin discuss the existence of so many different factions of Islam and of Middle Eastern and North African society, and evaluate these groups in terms of how their existence and power both supports and undermines a nations centralized power presently. The argument inevitably turns into a discussion similar to those surrounding James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 – are factions really the strength or the poison to a healthy (democratic) government and how is his argument, and Huntington’s argument effected when religion is introduced into the mix.
Why do you think that the history of the Middle East and North Africa before WWI matters in understanding modern politics in the region? What legacies did pre-colonial institutions leave that shape political behavior today? How did Western colonial intrusions up to WWI affect modern political outcomes?
The many changes in the political, social, religious, and economic landscape of the Middle East and North Africa during the early modern and modern periods, from the various Empires, social and hierarchical structures, religious preferences, and economic dealings that rose and fell in the area, all factored into creating the conditions in which this region exists today. For example, the clashing of pre-colonial empires, such as the Ottomans and the Safavids, sowed the seeds of religious conflict today, as in the sectarian violence between Shi’ites and Sunnis, and more generally established religious populations in areas in which they reside to this day. The decision of many empires to choose the path of defensive developmentalism led to their eventual colonization by Western powers, particularly in the case of Egypt and the Persian Gulf.
Western colonialism often inadvertently fostered nationalism in the regions they occupied, as in the case of the French in Algeria and the British in Egypt. Furthermore, the rapid development that often occurred in European-occupied regions tended to produce social unrest and disruption, which in turn sometimes lead to rebellion on the part of the occupied. The colonizers’ choices in choosing to develop or stunt the rate of development in colonized countries influenced revolutions and social tensions that have influenced today’s political landscape. More currently speaking though, the sense of collective Arab humiliation at the hands of Europeans throughout colonial times and into the modern era played a major role in the Arab spring and the domino effect of revolution and public outpouring that occurred throughout North Africa and the Middle East this past year.
Colonization, Occupation and Dependency are common themes that are often associated with 19th century European powers. I have heard it many a time whether it’s the Middle East, Latin America or even Africa. What singles out the Middle East and makes it even more complicated is that even before the arrival of the Europeans there were many complicated conflicts between different regions, religions e.g. tensions between the Sunni and Shia.
Yes, there was infrastructural investment in many of the regions, but like the authors I agree that they could have invested more in people. These authors point out that despite investing in technological advances in Egypt, not enough was done for human capital, for example investing in railways and not education. This is one legacy left behind in Egypt, despite the advanced railway system Egypt had, there was no education system to further advance the local population. So even after the Europeans pulled out the Egyptians did not have the necessary institutions to further grow their economy/human capital.
There was a tension between different religions and nationalities, and I think the “divide and conquer” strategy of many European countries only went to further aggravate these differences. Europeans also attested a lot of the region’s problems towards religious conflict. Yes, this might have been one of the reasons there was tension, but the issues ran much deeper than that. So the Europeans chose sides, often siding with the Christian parties as opposed to the Arab locals/ groups. I believe this is one of the lasting legacies that still influences post WWI Middle Eastern people’s views of Europe, the USA etc. the enemy. The current Israel/Palestine conflict is an obvious legacy of these European powers taking sides with Christian groups.
The history of the Middle East and North Africa before WW1 give insight into the politics of the region in a number of ways. A critical aspect to the region’s politics is nationalism. The formation of national identities sewed the seeds for a rejection of colonialism. Also religious identities undoubtedly have a profound effect on the region. Nationalism is also a driving force behind the rejection of western intervention in the Middle East. Nationalism is also a key factor in conflicts between Israel and its neighbors. Tension between Sunni and Shia is another example of how longstanding idealogical institutions, that predate colonialism, continue to influence the politics of the region.
An example of the effects of Western encroachment in the Middle East is evident in Persia’s development post WW1. Due to WW1 the formation of a stronger Persian state became possible. The war induced famine and political instability gave rise to Reza Khan, who strengthened Persia to an extent that had never before been reached. Reza Khan’s foundation of an authoritarian regime is the foundation of Iran’s current status.
What struck me most while reading Gelvin was how far back the religious conflict that is still prevalent today extends. Since the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632 we see a split between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, based around who should be the next descendent of Muhammad. This realization puts into perspective the extensive history we are talking about when we discuss Sunni- Shia conflict, indicating that the political and social problems may not be solved be a simple signing of a cease-fire. Furthermore, a more pessimistic side of me wonders how you can tackle so many years of history and conflict and come to a peaceful conclusion. It also struck me that, while we live in a society that supports and drives for secularism, religious ideals and beliefs are somewhat like the watershed for areas in the Middle East. We often believe in the idea of nationalism, people surrounded by a common identifier. In the Middle East the question seems to not be one of nationalism so much as one of sectarianism (especially between Muslims, Jews, and Christians).
These religious conflicts are heightened by the lines that were created by dynasties and colonizers who aimed to extend their reach as far as they could, fighting to maintain land where possible and conceding where necessary. Ironically, this desire to extend land, bolster military funding, and outsource tax collection to emulate a more European method, back fired on the Ottoman Dynasty; the measure required to keep their empires from fragmenting (defensive developmentalism) required loans from Europe. Thus, the very actions that were aimed to solidify their empire’s reign, gave room for European involvement and thus colonization.
Modern Middle East and North African politics reflect the turmoil that has arisen in the absence of the enormous occupying powers and centers of influence that existed for much of the region’s history. It has long been an area of great spiritual and cultural significance dating back to the founding of the major monotheistic religions as well as the empires through which they spread, making these holy places a source of conflict between empires and nations. Empires such as the Sasanian, Abbasid, Umayyad, Ottoman and Safivid dynasties ensured that the regions were constantly under rule of some form, and prevented the formation of the nations that now comprise modern day ME/NO until the 20th century.
Thus the shift of trade and eventually power to the west at a relatively late stage coupled with the economic and political significance of the region (Suez Canal, Egyptian cotton) ensured that European interference would prevent the Middle East from taking shape before WW1. The western colonial influence on the region brought the Ottoman Empire to its knees and developed economic and political relationships that in addition to disadvantaging the region, bound the two together and explain some of the reasons as to why the west is still involved in Middle Eastern politics today.
The legacy of western (European and now American) intrusion, or involvement, in the Middle East has set up the region for many of the current issues that are on the table today. The west penetrating east had its benefits at times, such as in Egypt’s short lived growth with cotton production, however it seems the west never invested itself whole heartedly and dropped its investments when it was in its best interest leading to Egypt’s collapse after its cotton was no longer needed. The first thing I thought of when reading this prompt was the Iranian President’s diatribe at the UN against the west at the UN Thursday afternoon. Although I do not agree with his standpoint, history does, in some ways, lay the pathway for eastern countries to blame and resent the west for many of its problems. With all of the concessions and exceptions made for Christian Easterners in the pre- WWII history, it is no wonder that extremists do not take kindly to those that have continuously misled the Middle East or driven it into economic or military crises because of exploitation and neglect. There is another side to this argument in that international relations and economy is in many ways inevitable, and I am not demonizing the west, however history of the region has shown the west as the oppressor and the source of many conflicts in the past that are affecting the conflicts of today.
Religion throughout the Middle East’s history is a dividing factor throughout this week’s reading and lectures. We see religion as divisive and leading to war in places like Iraq and Israel in the past and today. With regards to Iraq, the tension between Sunnis and Shi’ias is traceable to the history of the Safavid/Ottoman relationship that came to a head there. Although the actions taken are not necessarily justified, frustration from religious intolerance is understandable as in many cases, religions that have ties to the West have won out over the other. In history, the Christian minorities were tolerated and eventually protected by powerful Europeans. Now, the “Christians” (or rather non-Muslim dominated peoples) are once again protecting their interests in the region and bullying the enemy. Religion is a segregating phenomenon that has been and will be a basis for war, especially with Palestine and its allies gaining support.
The pre-WWI history of the Middle East was critical in setting the course of broad regional trends. Geographically, the way in which we think about the Middle East today dates back centuries. We still generally separate the region in to North Africa, the Gulf, the Levant, Turkish regions and Persia (Iran), where major empires arose. The religious make up of the region was also largely established pre-WWI. For example, many of the current hotbeds of religious tensions can trace their roots back quite far: Jerusalem and Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon in particular.
One of the most notable effects of pre-colonial institutions was to introduce “modernity” (forms of governance and institutions, military structures, market economies, etc) to the region through periods of reform and defensive development. In the end though, this merely paved the way for direct Western colonialism, thus introducing a cultural aspect to an already complicated transition period.
Colonialism before WWI was important to future political outcomes because European interests in the region were further defined during that period. For example, Britain wanted control of Egypt for the Suez Canal and cotton, while France was interested in the Levant partly to protect its Christian population.
The history of the Middle East and North Africa up to World War One is a history full of battles and takeovers and changes in regime. One dynasty made way for another, and the borders were constantly in flux. I think that we are seeing the legacies of all of those changes today more than ever before. The current conflicts in the region can be partially attributed to the artificial lines that were drawn during the colonial period. Nations were conquered and divided and conquered again, leading to a need for firm leadership to guide the state in its current form. The “strong leaders” often turned into authoritarian leaders, taking us to where we are today: people wanting freedoms that they haven’t had for years.
Western intrusions also had a major role in the shaping of the region, mainly through the Berlin Conference, but also through trading and their desire to expand their own newly formed empires. The western world interrupted the natural flow of the nations in the region, and shaped them into something that better fit with the goals of the more affluent nations in the West.