(Dys)Functional Polities: The Limits of Politics in the Postcolonial Arab Region

Utilising a multidisciplinary approach rooted in participatory action research, :ةّالوظيفي الكيانات drawn perspectives engages) 2021 ,Bustani * (حدود الممارسة السياسيّة في المنطقة العربيّة ما بعد االستعمار from sociology, political science, history, geography, and anthropology, to differentiate between Weberian hegemonic states, following both Weber and Gramsci, and what I call (dys)functional polities. These, I argue, are endpoints on the spectrum of successive political positions that characterise modern polities. In the contemporary globalised world, both the monopoly of violence and hegemony cannot be understood in a localised sense. Globally, states inflict violence on others, whether military, economic, or political, and at scales that may undermine sovereignty and sap the notion of independence of any substantive meaning.

Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is a major differentiating factor between the two kinds of polities, helping us decipher the roles played by a state’s political and civil societies, and the centrality of the latter in achieving hegemony, in addition to understanding hegemony in a global, rather than in a local, context. Thanks to its relatively robust political and civil societies, a Weberian hegemonic state tends to be a framework for accomplishing local hegemony and for expanding such hegemony regionally and globally whenever possible; Gramsci’s notion of hegemony does not accord with a (dys)functional polity, where the ruling group actively impairs or quashes the influence of civil society perceived as threatening to its monopoly of power and tends to be a framework for ensuring its own survival by eliminating potential competition that might emerge from the very civil society undermined. This simultaneously corrodes the (dys)functional polity’s hegemony and causes a chronic “crisis of authority” since survival depends on the ruling group’s ability to walk a tightrope between the often-contradictory roles (functions) that it performs, which are themselves tailored to global, regional, and local changes and/or upheavals. In doing so, the ruling group deploys control mechanisms internally and adaptation mechanisms externally, both of which exacerbate its (dys)functionality and dependency, leading to a (dys)functional paradox.

The Arab region is one of many in which colonial legacies and postcolonial interventionism continue to shape contemporary reality: the ruling groups of what are arguably inherited political entities are highly susceptible to the destabilisation inherent to the roles (functions) they serve in the global, regional, and internal spheres. The research that informs this book explores the impact of colonialism and neo-colonialism on the evolution of (dys)functional polities in the Arab region; the role of identity politics and societal fragmentation in the survival of such polities; and how reinventing colonial legacies as their national heritage gave them a certain validity.

Examining the failure of every major Arab political current (Islamist, Nationalist, Leftist,Liberal/ Secular) to achieve meaningful change in the last 100 years, the book argues that by the very nature of the limitations placed on them, and their acceptance of those limitations rather than a questioning of them, that is, by accepting (dys)functional polities as a valid political field, these political currents further entrenched and contributed to the survival of the polities’ ruling groups.

Finally, the book explores how (dys)functional polities employ, misuse, and manipulate political tools (such as elections, constitutions, and laws), civil society sectors (like the intelligentsia), concepts (like Islam and terrorism), and even opposition protests only to buttress themselves, thereby both deepening and diversifying their internal (local) and external (regional, global) roles (functions).

Using Jordan as the main case study, this commentary focuses on the defining features of Weberian hegemonic states vs. (dys)functional polities. It outlines the former’s practice of violence and hegemony on a global scale and contrasts it with the latter’s roles (functions) vis-à-vis regional and global power structures. It demonstrates how such ruling groups actively undermine civil society and the adaptation mechanisms they deploy to ensure their survival.