![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This article rejects the paradigm of “ancient sectarian hatreds†to explain the turmoil in the Middle East. Instead, the political context that illuminates the question of sectarianism is the persistence of authoritarianism and the crisis of legitimacy facing ruling regimes. The mobilization and manipulation of sectarian identities is a key strategy for regime survival, and it is within this framework that sectarianism can be better understood. Drawing on the literatures of ethnic mobilization and international relations, sectarianism is analyzed as a function of the authoritarian politics of the Middle East and not irreconcilable theological differences between Sunnis and Shias. Portions of this research were earlier presented in the Religion and World Affairs Series, a project organized and hosted by the Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs (CURA) at Boston University and funded by the Henry Luce Foundation.
Notes
1 It is often suggested that Sunni and Shi‘a differences resemble the division between Catholics and Protestants. The more accurate parallel in Christian, however, is between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
2 This echoes a thesis heard 20 years ago in the context of the Balkan wars: that a strong dictator kept control of “ancient hatreds†but with his death these forces have become unleashed. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman observes that sectarian tensions in the Middle East had “long been managed by iron fists from above.†But after longstanding dictators were toppled, “a horrifying war of all against all has exploded†(Friedman Citation2015b).
3 Like his predecessor Bill Clinton, these arguments were advanced to deflect calls for intervention to stop mass atrocities in Bosnia/Syria.
4 A similar number of Iranian pilgrims died in the 2015 during Hajj pilgrimage as a result of a stampede. This led to a further deterioration of Saudi-Iranian relations, but the difference between the two events is that the latter was an accident while the former was perceived as a deliberate massacre by the Saudi regime on Iranian pilgrims.
5 This document was spurious and has been refuted by human rights organizations.
6 All of the reports are available at: http://www.arab-hdr.org/ (United Nations Development Program Citation2002). Also see Gardner (Citation2015).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Nader Hashemi
Nader Hashemi is the Director of the Center for Middle East Studies and Associate Professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies.
Danny Postel
Danny Postel is Assistant Director of the Middle East and North African Studies Program at Northwestern University and the former Associate Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies.