Introduction to the Middle East and North Africa

Socio-political “necessities” largely shape the invention of the regional delineations. While there was no such territorial term
before the 20th century, the Middle East gradually gained over time a permanent place within the academic and political circles.
The leading powers of the world   constructed the Middle East as a regional concept. The division of the East into three sub-regions, one of which is the Middle East, the geopolitical importance of the Middle East in sustaining the
Western domination and the development of the Eastern Question played an important role in the  emergence of this concept.

The Middle East, sometimes referred to as Southwest Asia, as a concept, was initially invented by the colonial powers like Britain and France, and then widely used by the US. It is currently referring almost to the 20 countries between Asia and Africa has been in use, especially since the Second World War. Towards the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, this concept gained more visibility within the literature and the political domain over time. Therefore, it is indeed a modern-present and newly created term.

The Middle East as a geographic term within the literature was initially used by the American naval officer Alfred Thayer Mahan in 1902 to identify the region between Saudi Arabia and India. Otherwise, British General Thomas Edward Gordon had already used this term in 1900 before Mahan; and besides, this term had been utilized as a label by British India Office since the middle of the 19th century.

For the US, the Middle East was necessary to confront and to contain the expansion of Soviet communism during the Cold War. Hence, while
the US and Britain were equally responsible in the production and the construction of the Middle East as a geographic reference, they prioritized
distinct political, economic, and military concerns in their usage of this term

According to this colonial mentality, the West had a responsibility to rule the East and brought emancipation, progress, civilization, and freedom to these regions. This was seen as a historical necessity by several western countries.  The West presented itself as the legitimate
and the only representative of the modern values, the East was supposed to welcome and to advocate its leadership within the international relations and
right to rule/design the Rest. The implications of this ideational background can also be observable in the invention of the Middle East. Therefore,
besides its geographic realities and strategic
calculations, the Middle East, as an artificially created term, contains several ideological premises. In other words, as an inevitable outcome of the rise
of the West and its growing colonial control over the East, this concept was “attributed to” a region covering the area currently from Morocco through
Afghanistan.

Modernism is used to refer to the forced/colonial integration of the Middle East andNorth Africa into the new Western-based state system and economic structure.

The control of the Ottoman territories, and then the partition of them after the  World War I is generally identified as the the Eastern Problem/Question.

Following World War, I, Britain, and France as the victorious countries managed to implement their colonial strategies over these territories, which were now regularly defined as the Middle East. The political-social realities involving extant borders, state systems, and economic structures within this region were thus designated by these two mandatory states.

Zionism “is a colonial-settler project, which its founders understood was achievable only through an alliance with colonial powers.
Whereas the colonization of Palestine would start late, on the eve of the eclipse of European colonialism, Zionism would thrive in its early years precisely because both anti-Semitism and colonialism were de rigueur in late 19th and
early 20th century Europe”

The previous conflicts among the European powers and the entrenched disagreements within the bloc leaders of the Cold War on the Middle East validated the shatterbelt character of the Middle East.

Furthermore, the implications of the power struggle among the major actors, including Russia, the US, China, and partially European Union did not come to an end in the post-Cold War era, it, however, intensified.  The major powers’ divergent strategic calculations labeled previously as the Easter Question along with the lack of the regional unity and the persistent mistrust within the state-society relations disrupted the regional stability and security in the Middle East for a long time, and consequently it still constitutes the essential regional predicament.

Under the George W. Bush Presidency, the US unveiled a new initiative called the Greater Middle East Initiative in 2004.This initiative prompted a new discussion on the definition of the Middle East and concerning what its borders were. These discussions proved the ideational aspect and inconsistent
nature of the Middle East imagination. In other words, geographical definitions may not necessarily have specific and fixed meanings and borders. On the contrary, attributed meaning to these borders can change depending on the shifting international dynamics.

Bush and his administration frequently used Greater and Broader Middle East concept to refer to the “New” Middle East. According to Bush administration, due to terrorist challenges from the Afghanistan-Pakistan or the ongoing instability within several West and East African countries. 

This definition also reproduced the discourse identifying the Middle East and its
Muslim identity with the violence-terrorism.

The purpose of the Orientalist discourse  is to legitimize the colonial discourse structured upon the Western supremacy and Eastern domination,namely Orient-Occident distinction.

Accordingly, while Israel geographically is a part of the Middle East, it is seen as a part of the West due to its alleged democratic and secular identity and
allegiance to Western values. To put another way,the construction of the Middle East as conflictridden along with “Islamically-oriented” terrorism would simply serve the colonial reading of the Middle East and facilitate the normalization of the lasting Western intervention and interference in the regional politics. 

Orientalism “refers to several overlapping domains:

1. the changing historical and cultural relationship between Europe and Asia, a relationship with a 4000 year old history;

2. scientific discipline in the West according to which beginning in the early 19th century one specialized in the study of various Oriental cultures and traditions;

3. ideological suppositions, images and the fantasies about a currently important and politically urgent region of the world called the Orient.

The idea that this region is mainly conflict-ridden could be partially correct in terms of developments in the last 100 years. However, the history of the Middle East does not have just the previous 100 years, and its history started long before. Considering that it is home to the foundation of all divine religions, the recorded history of the Middle East can be traced back to at least 4000 years ago and even much older times. Furthermore, defining the Middle East as just the conflict-ridden region throughout the history disguises the real responsible actors (former colonial forces) in the formation of such a current state-system, borders and capitalist-global economic relations over the region. 
This labelling  only seems to approve and, more importantly, to legitimize the colonial discourse, which is built upon the construction of this region as another backward and subordinate territory. And this justifies  the Western domination of the Middle Eastern peoples and countries.

The Middle East has three different sub-regional systems:
These are :

1. Levant (the Near East) region,

2.North African (Maghreb) region,

3. Gulf region.

These regions are partially differing from each other due to their different state structures, ethnic-religion composition, and economic systems.

Most of the Levant and the Maghreb countries were colonized by France except Egypt, Libya, and Palestine. During the 19th century France established the colonial regime in the mentioned Maghreb countries while it formed similar regimes within the Levant region following the World War I. In contrast to these regions, Britain tried to control some Levant countries like Egypt and
Palestine, and it also settled mandatory regimes within the Gulf.

The Gulf region, along with Egypt and several Horn of African countries were colonized by Britain whereas  Libya was controlled by Italy until the end of World War II. This means  that these three sub-regional systems confronted different types of colonial regimes.

Another difference between these three sub-regional systems is that while most of the Gulf countries and individually the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have monarchic regimes, the Levant and the Maghreb regions have different types of regimes like fragile democracies, republican autocracies, and military-dominant regimes.

Identified also as distributive states, these countries within the Gulf region benefit from their oil reserves in sustaining their regime survival and creating national consent.  This policy is conceptualized as “no taxation no presentation”strategy and supposed to be the primary strategy in providing consistent stability within this region. Since monarchic regimes of the GCC provide necessary economic facilities/opportunities to their peoples, they are not supposed to raise political demands against their regimes .In the face of possible social uprisings and explosions, these countries immediately carry out the economic advantages to satisfy their societies.

Politically, there are three types of the regimes within the Middle East:
1. monarchic regimes existing predominantly within the Gulf region . In addition to GCC countries, Morocco and Jordan has monarchical political structures as well.

2. authoritarian republics  (like Iran and Syria) has a dominant-single party tied to regime ideology and has a military dominance in the designation of the socio-political life. Despite the existence of the several superficial democratic structures like parliament and weak opposition parties, every critical decision on the domestic and foreign policy is mostly determined by one man under undisputed power. 

3.Although limited in number , there are also democratic regimes in the Middle East. Following the Arab uprisings, Tunisia moved into a democratic model, and Iraq’s regime changed after US-occupied this country in 2003. Turkey, Lebanon and Israel can be also included in this group.

Consociational democracy developed by Arend Lijphart is based upon the power-sharing model between the powerful sectarian, religious, or ethnic groups. This type of democracy, which initially originated in the Western continent, intends to provide a stable and peaceful democratic system in the divided societies. The leading groups within these divided societies have no sufficient political-military power to defeat each other. Therefore, the only logical method seems to realize a reconciliation among them, according to which all critical authorities and positions, including the presidency, speaker of parliament and prime minister are expected to be shared depending on
their demographic power. (Iraq and Lebanon use this system)

Another type of classification of the Middle Eastern countries is based upon their distinct economic systems. According to this typology,

the first category is the resource-poor labor-abundant (RPLA),e.g.Egypt, Morocco, Jordan

the second is the resource-rich labor-abundant (RRLA), e.g. Algeria, Syria, Iraq,  Iran

the third resource-rich labor-poor (RRLP).e.g. GCC countries and Libya

This approach intends to present a political-economy reading of international relations within the MENA. In this context, in contrast to a few democratic regimes, most of the countries in this region have a deep-rooted
authoritarian structure. Secondly, these countries which mainly fail to fulfill their promises on the realization of the economic progress are claimed
to prove their economic underperformance.

Lebanon is the  only country  in the Middle East, where Christians have a certain socio-political role.Since France mandated it between 1920 and 1943, Maronites were given a privileged political-military position within Lebanon. Despite their losing initial powerful and dominant position within Lebanon, they still hold the key positions and mechanisms in this country.

Around 94% (503 million) of the population of this region is Muslim, and only a tiny percentage of this population has different religious backgrounds especially like Christianism and Judaism. These different religious groups are
mainly living in countries like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. There are around 10% of Coptic Christians within Egypt and 35% of Maronite Christians within Lebanon.  Most of the Jewish people are living in Israel. The only country where Christians have a certain socio-political role is Lebanon.

Arab-Muslim identity plays an  essential role in the  regional politics. However, despite  Arab-Muslim populated countries,  there is also ethnic-religious plurality within the MENA.

While Arabs, including Arab-Berber people living dominantly in the Maghreb region, occupy the first rank with their highest percentages within the total population of the region, there are other leading national groups like Turks, Persians, Kurds, Jews.

In addition to the existence of the various ethnic groups, there are also other religious groups, including Christians and Jews. While Coptic Christians make up the important religious minority of Egypt, Maronite Christians have essential demographic power within Lebanon.

Besides religious diversity, there are apparent sectarian differences among the
Muslims as  evidenced between Shia-Sunni madhabs. What is more,
the divergent practices can be noticeable even within the sub-branches
of the two leading sectarian groups. There is also an Ibadi community
associated with the Khariji tradition, which is defining itself as different
from the two major sectarian groups. Lastly, there is a Druze community
who has specific demographic power within Lebanon and also live in Syria.
So one can easily claim that despite its Arab-Muslim identity, the MENA
region still involves different cultural and ethnic groups.