Nationality and Arabs

   Nationality, patriotism, panarabism, regionalism....terms designed to define individuals residing certain geographic areas and thier feelings towards their patria. Long have I – as an Arab – heard the praise of Arab glories...the readiness to die for this stretch of land, ideals and history...the supremacy of the nation's historic and heroic figures and the injustice the imperialist world has served it in our modern days. Examining the history of Arabs, the problems emerge from the very beginning of this quest. Who are Arabs? Are they defined by their language? History? Religion? Culture? Does a Yemeni beduin have much in common with a Morrocan citizen? Is the arguement of some Lebanese intellectuals of pertaining to a generic meditteranean race of phonecian history rather than the Arab race accurate? Are caucasian residents in Jordan, Syria and Palestine considered Arabs? What about Kurds? They speak Arabic afterall, and are Muslims and Christians – the two main faiths in the Arab world. 

     Considering the history of Arab countries, basically after the birth of Islam in the 7th century and the rise and fall of Islamic Empires that stretched throughout history and geography, culminating in the Ottoman Empire, it is evident that the notion of statehood was one mixed of nationhood : a community of citizens identifying themselves as muslims, and not as citizens of certain regions. This identification with religion did not rule out the sense of “belonging” to a certain region, but the Asabiye – the prejudice and blinded identification with a closed group of  people (whether a clan, tribe or family) and the segmentation of societies based on race was prohibited – at least in theory. The Ottomans clearly did not respect this heritage, and the racist policies practiced by the Osmalis, coupled with the spread of nationalist sentiments in the XVIII and XIX centuries led to “Arab Nationalism or Panarabism”. The dismantling of the Empire and the division of Arab lands between colonial powers accentuated the identification of citizens with their bordered lands, and gradually – with the liquidation of nationalist parties and activists – the borders of these countries deepened and nationality laws started being promulgated. When a 15th century Arab identified himself as pertaining to a Muslim nation irrespective of the race/ethnicity of the ruling class, a 20th century Arab strongly identifies with the fellow citizens within the land space occupied by a given regime. The term “Arab” has therefore been blurred: if there is no actual Arab nation, and individuals are to be content with their identification as citizens of sub-nation states, then no Arab can logically and truthfully say that he or she is an Arab. History, language, culture and religion may be binding, but the diverse makeup of modern societies these days, thier orientation, cultural beliefs, norms and even linguistic expression have all loosened the once tightly sealed definition of Arabism. The state, with its rule, regulations, political system and the passport color shape who you are, and what you are entitled to. 

  This lengthy introduction is meant to address the issue of the Bahraini government's recent threat of withdrawing nationalities from Bahrani opposition activists. Apart from the fact that the right of nationality is a fundamental right granted by article 15 of the World Declaration of Human Rights, how can a government decide to use the “natural right of belonging” against any citizen who dares to cross it? How can a nationality become so awfully cheap and easily played with by officials when convinient? How can one's entire existence, self identification and pertinence be subject to arbitrary decisions? How can an entire nation be toyed with throughout history...leaving elites and imperlialists deciding on how one should feel and identify himself/herself? When were Arabs given a chance to decide on who they want to be and how they want to label themselves?

   

     The authoritarian regime in Bahrain is no stranger than that in many Arab countries, and the decision to withdraw nationalities is also not an innovative Al Khalifa coercion formula. Nonetheless, the fact that it is being used in the 21st century, third year into the Arab Spring, and amongst heated debated and studies on “what went wrong with democracy and human rights in the Arab world” is a shame. Moreover, this coercive instrument is being used whilst the slogans mentioned at the very beginning of the article are also employed passionately by the very same regimes...and that, dear readers, is simply a nifty disgrace.