By: Arthur Hall
Submitted: 2010-05-26 14:51:05 | Word Count: 486
It is undisputable that the Arab states play a growing role in the international relations, therefore the theories and ideas underlying their actions are worth a thoughtful examination. Two major ideologies can be found in the political thought of the Middle East: the Arab secular nationalism and Islamism. An attempt of a comparative analysis of these two movements will be presented in this essay.
It seems reasonable to start with the examination of the attitude of both theories to religion. It presents a fundamental difference between the views of nationalists and Islamists. The first are inclined to minimize the influence of religion on political life leaving only the historical and cultural meaning to it, whereas the second call for return to religion in every sphere of life. As Horwood mentions, in the Nasser’s Charter of 1962 “religion is mentioned hardly at all” (cited in Esposito 1995, p. 231). Prominent Islamist thinkers, on the opposite, stress the need for the restoration of the leading role of Islam in society (Qutb 1964, Khomeini 1970).
This implies different views on modernity: nationalism seeks to adopt and make use of the achievements of modern science whereas Islamism tends to reject modernization as a product of the West that is incompatible with Islamic values. According to the apt remark of Gilles Kepel, Islamism tends not to modernize Islam but to “Islamize modernity” (cited in Huntington 1998, p. 96).
Attitude to the West is related to the attitude to modernity that is perceived as a Western phenomenon. However, in this regard both ideologies have more in common since both see the West as their main enemy and as the embodiment of imperialism. Still, nationalists were mainly preoccupied by the desire to eliminate Western influence (as well as Soviet influence, by the way) on their states (Steward 2008, p.99), whereas Islamists are inclined to more radical view on the West as on the source of the world evil, and blame the West, especially the USA, in all their misfortunes (The Covenant of Hamas 1998; Rubin 2002).
[ advertisement ]
The position on the Palestinian conflict is common for all Arab ideologies: Israel is viewed as a creation of the imperialist West, as an attempt to expel the Arabs from their lands, as a threat to Islam, and, as such, is to be liquidated.
This leads us to the views of nationalists and Islamists on the use of force in international relations. Nationalism has more passion for reforms than for violence. However, this theory has much in common with socialism with its devotion to revolutions. The methods proposed by different wings of Islamism differ from moderate reformism to revolutions but Islamists are usually perceived as more belligerent, and this opinion is not ungrounded taking into consideration the frequent use of the term “jihad” (or sacred war) that often takes form of terrorism. Therefore, Islamists use force more readily than nationalists.
