Neo-Medievalism in the Middle East and the Challenges Facing Turkey

The Middle East has been taking on neo-medieval characteristics since the beginning of the popular uprisings three years ago.
 
In fact, this process was set in motion in the first years of the 21st century, particularly following the ousting of Saddam’s regime in Iraq by US-led forces in 2003. The reasons why it is apt to compare the emerging Middle East to the European international system in the Middle Ages are as follows.
 
First, as in the Middle Ages, the lines between internal and external spheres of activities are being increasingly blurred. In parallel to the evaporation of territorial borders among independent nation-states, it is no longer possible to talk about clear-cut demarcation lines between domestic and foreign realms. The Arab Spring has made it undoubtedly clear that the traditional borders separating different political units from each other are no longer impenetrable. The feeling of holding multiple identities and loyalties at the same time has become more widespread in recent years. The degree of “deterritorialization” has increased as the traditional boundaries between what is foreign and what is domestic have begun to lose their relevance in the face of increasing transnational bonds. It is quite likely that the ongoing popular uprisings across the region will wind up creating new political entities that may be built on non-secular particularism.
 
What is transpiring in Syria is a clear example of this new reality. The civil war there, pitting different ethnic and sectarian groups against each other, has already spread to Lebanon and is affecting the dynamics of politics in Iraq profoundly.
 
Second, non-state actors are now becoming as influential as traditional state actors and challenging the claim to sovereignty of nation-states. Hezbollah and Hamas are prime examples of this trend. So are the ethnic and sectarian groups in Syria and Iraq. The proliferation of non-state actors is eroding the territorial sovereignty of nation-states. Regimes in many countries in the region are now being exposed to existential challenges emanating from different actors, be it transnational terrorist organizations or sub-state regional authorities.
 
Third, along with the proliferation of new actors, the Middle East has become a scene where multiple identities exist simultaneously. The rise of transnational identities based on the primacy of ethnicity and sect is hollowing out the appeal of a nation-state identity that is assumed to offer an umbrella identity to all citizens living in a country. In today’s Middle East, the loyalties of people appear to lie with, first and foremost, tribal, ethnic and sectarian communities. What makes this emerging reality conform to neo-medievalism is that these alternative identities exist simultaneously, overlap and vie for people’s allegiance.
 
Fourth, the region today epitomizes the ideal example of intrastate and interstate anarchy. Similar to the European system in the Middle Ages, today’s Middle East seems to be falling short of uniting its diverse communities along common norms and principles that would make the region appear to be a single society. If there is any common interstate and intrastate norm in the region around which different communities unite, it is survival. This norm has been the quintessential part of interstate and societal practices in the region since the birth of the modern Middle East following the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Rivalries have continued to shape regional politics for decades and the Arab Spring has contributed to such practices. Not to mention the traditional rivalries between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, Iran and the Gulf emirates and Turkey and Iran, recent years have witnessed the rise of societal and transnational rivalries and polarizations that have pit one particular ethnic or sectarian group against the other all over the region. The obsession with survival in the region also closely ties in with the malaise of the security dilemma. When the abundance of interstate and intrastate rivalries are juxtaposed with the lack of regional institutions or hegemonies, the end result appears to be the growth of the security dilemma -- which means the measures one actor takes in order to increase its security is perceived by others as a threat to their security.
 
Fifth, the emerging Middle East also demonstrates that outside powers have deeply penetrated into regional affairs, and ongoing regional rivalries and polarizations cannot be properly understood without unraveling the root causes of outside involvement in the region.
 
The birth of the neo-medieval Middle East, the basic characteristics of which are mentioned above, is the most important external factor with the potential to put Turkey’s quest for internal and external stability in jeopardy. Turkey’s societal make-up and historical baggage appear to make it vulnerable to the negative consequences of a neo-medieval Middle East. Becoming more involved in regional affairs without first firmly establishing internal peace and stability would run the risk of catapulting Turkey into the midst of the neo-medieval Middle East. The idea of getting involved in Middle Eastern politics as Turkey is doing now should be avoided.