Why is Western-style democracy such a difficult equation for Middle Eastern peoples caught in the grip of tribalism?

The ‘majoritarian’ system, which is the fundamental mechanism of Western-style democracy, creates clear winners and losers. The will of 51% prevails over the will of 49%. In a society marked by deep divisions between tribes, this model can be extremely dangerous. The tribe or tribes that lose the election may not recognise the outcome as legitimate and may take up arms against the government. This situation has the potential to easily transform political competition into conflict. The fragmentation of Libya after Gaddafi, the division of politics along sectarian and tribal lines in Iraq, and the civil war in Yemen are painful examples of this dynamic. At this point, I believe it is necessary to carefully examine Turkey's position between Westernisation and Eastern culture.

In the Western world, social order is based on liberal democratic foundations such as individual rights, the rule of law, an independent justice system, the value of labour, and representative government. However, whether this model can achieve the same success when exported to regions with fundamentally different social structures and historical dynamics is a question that has been clearly answered in recent history. In this context, there are strong arguments as to why democracy may not be a suitable form of government for many Arab societies where tribalism and the social codes associated with this structure are deeply rooted.

In this article, rather than treating Arab peoples as a single category or labelling them, I have attempted to analyse the impact of the tribal phenomenon on political culture and how it conflicts with democratic principles.

Loyalty and conflict of interest: the individual or the tribe?

The basic political unit of modern democracy is the citizen. Citizens are expected to vote based on their individual consciousness, social status, level of education, and interests, assessing the ideologies or qualifications of candidates. However, in societies dominated by tribal structures, primary loyalty is to blood, family, and clans. Abstract concepts such as ‘state’ or ‘nation’ often take a back seat to the concrete and powerful reality of blood ties.

This situation directly affects the electoral process. Political parties, which are a necessity of democracy, can turn into platforms representing clans rather than ideological grounds. Voters support their tribe's candidate with a sense of ‘duty,’ regardless of the candidate's programme or merit. This approach and block voting behaviour fundamentally undermine individual will and the principle of merit-based representation. Politics ceases to be an arena for resolving national issues and becomes a battleground for tribes to fight for power and resources. This pushes societies towards becoming small groups engaged in power and supremacy struggles rather than a large and powerful nation.

The history of this region is the greatest supporter of this claim. Unfortunately, this problem of meritocracy is not limited to the Arab world, but is experienced in all neighbouring regions that share culture, trade and beliefs.

Elections are influenced by clans, tribalism, and even religious subgroups. This leads to regional or national leaders being elected based on the criterion of ‘one of us’ rather than merit and ability.

The State and the Tribe: The Ongoing Competition for Power

The borders of many Arab states today were drawn with a ruler during the colonial period, disregarding the ethnic and tribal realities of the region. These artificial borders have divided the same tribe into two or forced tribes that are enemies to live under the same state. As a result, a strong national identity has not been established in most of these countries, and people have felt more affiliated with their tribes than with the state. States have sometimes remained silent towards tribal or religious subgroups due to a lack of power or concerns about losing votes.

Tribes function almost like ‘states within a state.’ They provide security, social security, and economic support to their members through customary law. When the state's justice system or social services are weak, people turn to tribal or religious group leaders to resolve their problems. This undermines the legitimacy and authority of the state. A democratic concept such as the rule of law cannot flourish in an environment where the tribe's internal laws and norms are considered superior to the laws of the state.

Nepotism

Many practices that are seen as ‘corruption’ from a Western perspective are considered a ‘duty’ in tribal culture. The phenomenon known as nepotism is the obligation to help one's relatives and tribe members. It is expected that a politician who comes to power will distribute state resources such as positions, contracts, and funds primarily to members of their own tribe.

This situation destroys the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity in a democratic system. It is not ‘what you know’ that matters, but ‘who you know.’ Politics ceases to be a service for the public good and becomes a means of domination and resource distribution for the tribe that has seized power over others. This deepens polarisation and instability in society by fuelling the ‘winner takes all’ mentality. Furthermore, when those who are not in power today come to power in the future, they will seek revenge on today's rulers for the oppression and marginalisation they have suffered, which will endanger the unity and existence of the nation.

Shura Culture and Majority Democracy

In traditional tribal systems, decisions are usually made through ‘consultation’ or ‘shura’ mechanisms, where elders or leaders come together to reach a consensus. The aim is to maintain internal harmony and prevent divisions. This culture is based on compromise.

In contrast, the ‘majoritarian’ system, which is the basic mechanism of Western-style democracy, creates clear winners and losers. The will of 51% prevails over the will of 49%. In a society with deep divisions between tribes, this model can be extremely dangerous. The tribe or tribes that lose the election may not recognise the result as legitimate and may take a stand against the government. This situation has the potential to easily turn political competition into armed conflict. The fragmentation of Libya after Gaddafi, the division of politics along sectarian and tribal lines in Iraq, and the civil war in Yemen are painful examples of this dynamic. It is precisely at this point that I believe we need to carefully examine Turkey's position between Westernisation and Eastern culture.

The Limits of an Imported Model

All these factors show that the social fabric dominated by tribalism is in serious conflict with the basic assumptions of Western democracy. The problem is not that the peoples of the Middle East are ‘unsuitable’ for governance, but that the imported and standardised model offered to them is incompatible with the social realities of that region, which date back thousands of years.

It is also incorrect to completely demonise tribalism. Tribes can serve as important social safety nets in societies with scattered settlements, especially where the state is weak. Similarly, the concept of ‘shura’ in Islamic thought is interpreted by some intellectuals as the basis for a participatory and deliberative model of democracy.

During my visits to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, I had the opportunity to observe both the wealthy, cultured Saudi people who have embraced the Bedouin way of life and the immigrants living in the Arab world. I observed that individuals, regardless of their social, ethnic, or economic positions, had submitted to tribal authority with inner peace and had fully accepted the justice, trade, and social privileges granted by the authority to itself and its supporters. While in secular Western culture, the course of life has turned towards money and entertainment, in the Arab world, the needle has always pointed towards power. Indeed, throughout Islamic history and in the early years of the Risalah, the worship of power and authority has always stood as an obstacle to the narrative of Tawhid. When viewed from a sociological and geopolitical perspective, the light shed by history on parts of Anatolia and the entire Arabian Peninsula clearly shows that these regions are not well suited to the model of democracy imported directly from the West.

Therefore, the solution for these regions may lie in developing hybrid and unique governance models rooted in the region's own historical and cultural dynamics, rather than imposing a Western template. Systems that can integrate traditional consensus mechanisms with modern state structures, and manage group identities as a source of richness rather than disregarding them, may find a more lasting and legitimate foundation than an imported democracy. Otherwise, democracy will remain an ideal doomed to be suffocated by tribalism.