Europe, with its history of conflict, has embraced unity while the Arab world, despite its cultural homogeneity, remains divided. Why, asks Hassan Nafaa* As we mark the 50th anniversary of the Egyptian-Syrian union -- the merger took place on 22 February 1958 -- many must wonder why unity remains such a distant dream in the region. How has Europe, with a past replete with conflict, achieved unity while we have stumbled? Arab countries have more in common with one another than European states. We have stronger historical and cultural bonds than anything the Europeans have. So what has gone wrong? Europe has unified its markets, established a single currency and is moving steadily towards political union. Meanwhile, the Arab world is divided, with some states falling prey to sectarianism, others heading towards partition. The Arabs seem to have reached a dead end. Israel, a small country, is battering the Palestinians to death and no one seems to care. Denmark, another tiny nation, is reprinting cartoons offending Islam and our officials seem incapable of stopping it. Is there any hope for unity in our part of the world? Many among us are willing to argue that all hope is lost. Some Arab analysts believe that the region lacks the political will to unite. It is a view that cannot be taken seriously considering the many instances on which the Arab public, and even governments, have clamoured for unity. I would argue that the desire for unity among Arabs is greater than among Europeans. A wave of pan- Arabism swept the region following the 1956 War leading, two yeas later, to the merger between Egypt and Syria. A similar phenomenon occurred during the 1973 War. There has been no lack of Arab leaders espousing unity in the past few decades, though they have tended to do more damage than good. What we lack is not the will but the political and social structures capable of sustaining momentum for unity. Other analysts argue that Arab differences run deeper than anything in Europe. The Arabs may have much in common in terms of culture, goes the argument, but not enough to counteract the profound differences in their political and social systems as well as in their domestic and foreign policies. For example, Arab countries with immense wealth and small populations have a reason to shun unity with their poorer and more populous neighbours. Also, small and weak Arab countries wouldn't want to merge with stronger and larger countries for fear of losing their identity. A similar situation exists in Europe, however, and it has not prevented unity. Europe has monarchies and republics, large and small countries, rich and poor nations. Germany is much bigger than Luxembourg. Portugal is much poorer than the UK. So it is not a matter of homogeneity, but of finding a formula that can benefit all, the small as well as the large, and the rich as well as the poor. A third group of analysts say that external factors helped European unity in a way that is not conceivable in the Arab world. Europe may have been caught up in the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the US following WWII but when it took its first steps towards unity one of the superpowers was supportive. The US gave Europe the Marshall Plan, then NATO. The exact opposite happened in the Arab world following WWII. The Middle East became an arena for superpower rivalry, but neither the US nor the Soviet Union encouraged unity. While this may be true it doesn't explain everything. Foreign intervention in the Arab world was as much a result as a catalyst of divisions in the region. None of the above arguments explains why the Arab world has failed to achieve unity. So maybe there is a simpler explanation. European unity started with a brilliant initiative intended to defuse tensions between France and Germany. European unity didn't start with the Common Market, created in 1958, but with integration of its coal and steel sectors in 1951. The success of this move encouraged cooperation in other sectors, leading to a customs union, then a common market, then the unification of currency. Europe started first with the economy then began coordinating its foreign and military policies and then moved towards political unity. European unity started with six countries then expanded gradually until it now includes 27. The process of integration in Europe was not confined to governments but included parliaments (the European Parliament), local government bodies (the Committee of Regions), civil society institutions (the Economic and Social Committee), and the judiciary (the European Court of Justice). Europe's approach to unity was far more innovative than typical federal models and more extensive than anything regional organisations could hope to achieve. Europe invented a new mechanism for decision- making that surmounted traditional big-small and rich-poor tensions. It differentiated between "sovereign" issues, on which decisions can only be made through unanimous vote, and "integration" issues, which can be decided by a majority vote. Each country was given a vote commensurate with its demographic and economic weight. The above-mentioned all have a single, underlying common denominator; democracy. Europe has it and we don't. European unity has been confined to democratic countries. New members have been refused entry until they can prove their democratic credentials. It was democracy that allowed Europe to move gradually towards unity. It was democracy that allowed Europe to create an effective institutional structure, find an appropriate decision-making mechanism, and set the right pace for integration. When we have democracy in the Arab world we will be able to do the same thing. Before democratisation unity will remain a dream impossible for the simple reason that integration is by nature an institutional process unfolding on a regional scale. When you don't have institutions at a national level you cannot aspire to have them on a regional one. I am not saying that the Arab world should follow Europe's footsteps exactly. Our problems differ from those of Europe and our ways of resolving our problems must perforce differ too. It will be impossible, however, to resolve our problems in the absence of democracy and public participation. Our differences are not insurmountable and unity is not an impossible dream. First, though, we must embrace democracy. * The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
