The rise of sectarian conflicts will not fragment the Levant

Read my first comment piece for The National: The rise of sectarian conflicts will not fragment the Levant

On sectarianism as destiny: How to misread Syria

There’s a palpable sense that the situation in Syria is increasingly being debated in anthropological terms. The telling clue is the word ‘mosaic’. As in ‘a mosaic of different sects and ethnic groups.’ When all other analytical tools fail, a convenient tactic among Middle East experts is to revive the sectarian prototype, apparently the key to understanding political dynamics in this part of the world. But while sectarian dynamics do play a role in the politics of the Middle East, the real picture is far more complex. The conclusions regarding Syria that we are being presented with today arise from the myopic and reductionist sectarian lens. There’s nothing inevitable about the sectarian logic prevailing.

Take this comment by Gary C. Gambill for example, in which he is arguing for a ‘strategic non-intervention’ in Syria. Here’s his characterisation of the situation:

Sects and the City

In my post ‘Hariri / Hezbollah: in search of a new division of labour’ I argued that the climate of fear being created in Lebanon today is a noisy background for the upcoming deal that will seal a power-sharing arrangement between the main political camps under a renewed Syrian patronage. I closed that post by saying ‘we, as always, remain as spectators in all of this.’ This isn’t a call for disengagement and cynicism about politics; on the contrary it’s a call for the Lebanese people to reject all the secret deals being made without our participation. But how can we express our political will in this crucial period as we watch the blatant abdication of responsibility by Lebanese leaders?