Daily Times

The Middle East, in its colonial interpretation at least, is dead. What started as an Anglo-French ploy with the circuitous designs of Mark Sykes and Francois Picot, has now reached its terminus nearly a century later. With the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or whatever the acronym is nowadays), the artificial borders of various states like Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, never corresponding to ethnic-religious boundaries in the first place, are all but extinct now.

Also, something that has been true for a long time now will at least get some recognition: the days of US hegemony in the Middle East are also numbered. Gone are the times when US presidents commanded loyalty from the authoritarian rulers in the region. Although the Arab Spring might not have been able to achieve its objectives (revolutions rarely do), the subsequent civil warfare has proved to be the death knell for US power. Combine that with the withdrawal from Iraq (already undertaken) and Afghanistan (due at the end of this year), and you can see why no one looks towards the Oval Office for a script anymore.

Additionally, with a dithering Iraqi government under Maliki, and lush sources of funding, the rise of ISIS is a harbinger for increased Sunni influence in the Middle East. Contrastingly, it also brings an opportunity for Iran to purge itself of its nefarious image to some extent, and work with the international community to mitigate this threat. However, the rise of the Islamic state and al-Baghdadi also increases the chances of an all-out Sunni-Shia conflict in the region, on the lines of the Iran-Iraq war.

Suffice it to say that the political (and territorial) landscape in the Middle East is changing faster than you can say ‘I told you so’ but what if the current events are only the smoke, and not the fire itself? Can we be sure that we have diagnosed the disease correctly this time? I do not think so.

What if the events in the Middle East can kindle the embers of another, much bigger fire? What, you ask, can this deeper problem be? Here is a hint: the modern nation state, as we have come to know and love it, is experiencing a coup de grâce as we speak. The international political scenario changes ever so slowly but, even at its glacial pace, the scenario has changed drastically. Whereas once kingdoms and empires were the norm, we now have the nation state as the political yardstick for progress. Leaving aside the setups prevalent before the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), the subsequent years saw the rise of the nation state, with (supposedly) homogenous linguistic, ethnic and religious communities. Later on, the absolute monarchies of the past gave way to liberal-democratic regimes and, throughout the years, more sections of the populace have been given voice through socio-economic and political rights.

Coming back to the issue though, we can argue that the 19th century was the time of empires, whereas the 20th century saw the nation state emerge. But what can we look forward to in the 21st century? Not to put too fine a point on it but replacing the empire was easy; we already had the republic to look up to. However, in these end times, do we have a theoretical and practical replacement for the nation state?

There has been no mistaking the fact that the nation state has been on the decline for some time now. Growing pressures from globalisation, mobility, economic and regional integration and the rise of non-state actors have proved to be a bane for the nation state. But, in the face of all this, it has survived. Until now, that is. What we are experiencing now are the very last breaths of a dying organism.

Unable to face the challenges that have been laid down in its path, the nation state is giving way to a new world order where territorial borders do not matter that much and an ever-mobile citizenry does not rely on the state for the provision of services, security included. Furthermore, the state’s security and control apparatus are fast drawing criticism from its citizens that have come to take liberty for granted. Moreover, the escalation of stateless, unbounded militant terrorism is akin to death by a thousand cuts for the nation state. Agreed that the nation state is still putting up a strong resistance, but the tide has turned now. All of the social, political, economic and even technological progress the nation state engendered is, in a cruel twist of fate, proving to be its nemesis now.

So, if change is inevitable, what do we replace the nation-state with?

Hunter-gatherer communities? Security enclaves? Regional integration with open/porous borders? A caliphate? The possibilities are endless. Dream on.

The writer is a freelance columnist