Despite the many conflicts which the last two decades have witnessed, globalization has proved that national identities will not vanish, but can live in harmony in a world in which globalization is a call for peaceful coexistence rather than disagreement and enmity. In other words, these diverse identifies and cultures form the global community over which peace reigns.

Observers of contemporary Arab realities notice that this global vision is completely missing, as if we were unaware of the current course of man s history: a growing historical trend which surmounts conflicts and differences to form one world which has common interests and coexist peacefully, as, apparently, the only option that ensures survival.

The world today is witnessing unprecedented mutual contact, either through the modern means of transportation land, sea and air which make travel among the continents a daily routine job, or the modern means of communication which have in effect made the world a small global village and reduced time and space allowing individuals to communicate and interact around the clock.

Whereas people are forming a new international community along these developments, we, Arabs, surprisingly, abandon the dream of a unitary state, which is over a century old now, in favour of fragmentation and division not only at sate or religion level, but at tribe and sect level as well.

That does not apply to the Arab world only, but it is also the case for Muslim countries. Striking examples of this are in Iraq which witnesses sectarian strife under the cover of false democracy; afflicted Palestine, which is beset by conflict between Hamas and Fateh; Yemen, where the Houthis all of a sudden created sectarian conflict; Afghanistan, where two main forces a civilian and a religious extremist are in conflict; Pakistan, which is suffering divisions; Somalia, which has changed from a state to splinter groups of gangs and pirates, in addition to factional conflict and sectarian strife in many countries around the Arab world.

I don t mean to absolve any foreign forces of accusations of encouraging divisions; however, even if those forces have their own agendas in this respect, our rapid response to such encouragement indicates that there is something in our social upbringing and mentality that leans towards such divisions.

There is no doubt that old colonialism which used to send huge armies to seize the colonies wealth and resources no longer needs that today if it can achieve the same result using its old slogan divide and rule , which is widely popular in the Arab world.

Using modern technology to provoke divisions

In addition to all calls for ethnic, sectarian and factional and other divisions, the Arab world has witnessed a mave of internal violence over the last two decades. The idea of suicide bombing, which was first used by some Palestinian youth against the Israelis, has become a means of violence in the one country, tribe and sect. Tribal fragmentation has even witnessed a completely new phenomenon when a football match between Egypt and Algeria two months ago led to tribal and chauvinistic disputes which turned into a political crisis between the two countries.

Interestingly, the current communication revolution in which state-of-take-art technology is used, including satellite channels, and the Internet, which is supposed to be a forum for cultural and intellectual openness, is used according to wrong reasons. Arabs often choose whatever suits their ideas and watch whatever fuels their beliefs. In addition to being a means of common communication and interaction among civilizations or within the same civilization, the communication revolution has become a means of inciting sedition. We have seen how a small news item in a tabloid can prompt a revolt or even a massacre in another country within a few hours. Other popular means of communication, such as the Facebook, can become a virtual platform for mutual enmity, wrangling and racial propaganda, resulting in further sedition and divisions among members of the same civilization, culture, religion and even the same language, as well as further violence and bloodshed at the expense of progress and development.

But how have Arab societies become so susceptible to division and fighting for the most trivial reasons? Why have the slogans of Arab unity and solidarity and pan-Arabism become more unattainable today than at any time before? What reasons make it easy to mobilize Arabs against others with different sectarian, tribal or fictional affiliations? With these practices the Arabs look as if they rejected the idea of human diversity and the global citizen who acknowledges others identities and in this way expects difference to be the norm.

Legitimacy and despair

In a previous article about the culture of defeat I referred to Arabs reactions to what the public consider against their beliefs, and how these are an expression of defeatism rather than a means of protest and thus are ineffective. This is true at the level of both inter-Arab differences as well as differences with others. To investigate the underlying reasons for this phenomenon two key issues should be taken into consideration: first, defeatism has become a deeply-rooted concept and turned into despair which individuals and groups express in the form of anger and violence clearly seen in tens of instances daily; second, the concept of legitimacy and to what the Arab rulers have it, from the point of view of the public rather than the regimes.

As far as despair born of defeatism is concerned, it seems it has deep roots in most Arab countries whose civilization declined for years before making an attempt to restore their awareness and power at the turn of last century through many revolutionary and liberation movements and pan-Arab projects which Abdel Nasser led its main elements and countries later, and thus people across the entire Arab world restored their national dream of progress, but the 1967 defeat shattered the dream before it was fulfilled.

But despair which heightens the feelings of the common people or turns individuals into suicide (or martyr ) bombers, as the writer Amin Maalouf says in his book The Imbalance of the World , was not the product of 1967, 1948 or the end of World war I but it came in the normal course of history which no event can reduce. It s the history of a people that witnessed a long period of glory followed by a long fall. They have been longing for revival for two hundred years, but each time they fall again. They suffered successive defeats, disappointment and insults, until Gamal Abdel Nasser appeared and the people shared him the belief that revival and restoration of self-confidence and the admiration of others could be achieved. But when the Arabs collapsed again and suffered such humiliation, they, along with the entire Muslim world, felt they lost everything.

Maalouf argues that Abdel Nasser s defeat then death led to the rise of different political projects which competed to inherit his legacy, but mostly failed because they lacked legitimacy , such spontaneous legitimacy that is almost made of flesh and blood which Abdel Nasser possessed until he died, in spite of his flaws, errors and defeats. Lack of legitimacy in any human society, Maalouf continues, is a form of imbalance which shakes all patterns of behaviour. When any authority, institution or individual lacks moral credibility, and when people are so frustrated that they believe the world is a jungle dominated by the strongest and all blows are allowed there, tendency towards violence, oppression and chaos intensifies.

Violence, the result of a diminishing identity

Supporting the political projects which attempted to inherit the Nasserite project, namely the Islamic movements, is a sign of reaction to the absence of legitimacy and an attempt to show that the rise of those religious groups is the alternative legitimacy. It is a natural thing that the peoples who feel that they and their civilization are declining or suffer cultural marginalization and political humiliation are more susceptible to listening to the calls for violent resistance, chaos and destruction.

There is a growing recognition of human diversity in our world today. Everybody can speak the language they choose, follow their beliefs and assert their origins in peace without being subjected to enmity or contempt by the authorities or people alike. Such a world is apt to develop and rise. On the other hand, if the identity argument reigns and people find increasing difficulty every day in being themselves, speaking their language or practising their religion freely, Isn t it a natural thing to speak of decline?

This may be the crux of the matter in both the identity and legitimacy issues, as any authority which preserves both will be able not only to hold its economic and military power but also to secure individuals freedom of expression and worship and control racial trends through fair practices.

Experiments of multi-ethnic countries

Arab countries and organizations are asked today more than at any time before to consider the reasons behind such a decline and individuals tendency towards divisions, fanaticism and sectarian and tribal bias at the expense of the logic of the state which is based on the principles of coexistence, tolerance and freedom. Studies conducted in this connection should take into consideration the experiments of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural countries, such as the USA, which give freedom to individuals as the state gives legitimacy to itself, in an attempt to foster the culture of diversity.

Furthermore, Arab societies are convinced now that sticking to old practices and ignoring developments creates new rigid, like-minded generations, which fosters the culture of violence, selfishness and pragmatism to a startling extent.

Education planning authorities in the Arab world are responsible for the delay in developing such curricula that promote diversity and multiplicity and highlight the exchange of ideas and scientific thinking instead of rote learning and narrow-minded approaches based on a single culture as the centre of the universe.

We are all required to restore our ability to deal with our environment, resources, knowledge and diversity in a better way according to a different value system, rather than through destroying the existing one.

A lot of Arab resources, particularly the financial ones, have been wasted on unplanned expenditure, which led to the signs of extravagance and indifference. These resources should have been allocated to development projects which we are badly in need of to solve the problems of development and services which should be addressed. Consumerist values in the Arab world have shown that resources are ultimately limited, and consumerism alone does not create civilization, and, consequently, the cultural product should take priority in the Arab development plans, as only culture can raise individuals able to bring about real, sustainable development.

It is also important to note that to ensure inter-Arab peaceful coexistence and interaction with other cultures, we have to fully understand others and exchange knowledge.

Arab education and culture are largely responsible for formulating new concepts of coexistence which engrave the importance of other cultures on children s minds from infancy and give due attention to learning foreign languages so that they love at least another culture and recognize others arts and knowledge, noting that to other cultures we are also others .

That may be the cornerstone of the change process which the Arabs mentality should go through, as this mentality today is witnessing an unprecedented state of narrow-mindedness, and only education and culture can save the Arabs from such grim reality of backwardness, ignorance and uncertain future, and put them on the road to coexistence and survival. There is no other alternative.