BTW the Iraqi state needs nationalism and secular state institutions. Religiously diverse nations (diverse in terms of sects) like Iraq need secular institutions in order to prevent group x or y from dominating and potentially, as in history, discriminating the other party and thus weakening the state and creating distrust and conflicts whose repercussions are still felt decades afterwards.
Iraqis are one of the most religious people in the region so whether the state is governed by secularism won't
matter de facto. However at least it will ensure what I described above not happening or at least having a lesser chance of succeeding.
Otherwise minorities will feel pressured or not at ease. In Iraq the Shia Arabs are the majority (60% of the population) and similarly the Syrian Sunni Arabs (75%) are the majority in Syria. Both those countries should be governed by secular systems that will not discriminate on minorities or certain groups due to sect.
In both Iraq (under Saddam) the Sunnis were overly represented in the government. Not because they were Sunni but because most of the leaders in Iraq were Sunnis - which they have always been BTW historically speaking as they were the most educated, cosmopolitan and well-off compared to the impoverished and densely populated rural South, tribal/regional ties are often stronger in Iraq and other Arab countries. Similarly under Al-Maliki.
Same story in Syria under Al-Assad. Here Alawites, despite barely numbering 10% of the population, are dominating almost the entire military, because the Al-Assad family is Alawite and from the Latakia region (Alawite stronghold of Syria) and because even pre-Ba'ath Syria rule, Alawites were dominating the military due to the military path being looked down upon by the Sunni Arab Damascan elite. Al-Assad (Senior) however allied himself with rich Sunni Arab merchant families and bureaucratic families (former Sunni Arab nobility and upper classes) which to this day remain relatively loyal. Similarly Al-Assad (senior) allied himself with the mostly rural/tribal Eastern Syria and the Bedouin tribes there. The latter helped end the Hama massacre in the early 1980's. Which meant that Al-Assad left Eastern Syria alone.
I honestly see no other solution in Yemen either. Ironically all 3 states have a history of secular institutions and sadly family dictatorships based on the military model/Soviet Union style dictatorships.
I would even say that this would be a good thing in KSA too as the various sects are even greater (Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, Sufi), (Twelver, Zaydi, Ismaili) however most of them fall under the Sunni umbrella which makes it easier on paper. There is also, much more in KSA due to its size, the regional differences and tribal/clan differences. Ideally no community in KSA should feel threatened by other groups in the country, whether majority or minority, regardless of sect, regional origin, dialect etc. This way you create strong and stable states that cannot easily be used by outsiders to create trouble or by opportunists within.
This should be the main job of every Arab regime/government. Call it secularism or whatever. I don't care. It's not like Islam will disappear or that people stop being Muslim. I am talking about government rule here. No regime is following Islamic teachings anyway and they are using it (Islam) as a political tool for power like any other non-Arab state.
Ideally of course we would have meritocracy however this is dreaming whether in the Arab world, West or elsewhere. China might be close and surprise, surprise, they are generally doing very well despite the many challenges and despite having 1.3 billion people to pick from and a very homogenous country ethnically and religiously.
Obviously focus on education, healthcare, science, industrialization, infrastructure, improving state institutions and services should be the main goals to pursue but the fundament (state institutions) are key in this process otherwise nothing will occur.
The reason (among other) why GCC has done well, unlike similarly and EQUALLY resource rich (by large) counties in the region (Arab as non-Arab) and even not from the region at all (South America, Africa, Central Asia) is due to the key fundament (fundamentals) as I have described them being much more pronounced and well-defined than in countries such as Syria and Iraq. The differences, wither regional, sectarian, ethnic (in some regions and countries) have been embraced by large or downplayed, rather than exploited. Probably being an ethnically homogenous region (Arab - no "Kurdish problem" for instance) helped in this regard. Similarly we see the same in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia etc.
Only in Algeria and Morocco do we have a somewhat similar divide like in Syria and Iraq ("Kurdish problem") which is the Arab-Berber "divide" but here we must not forget that Arabs and Berbers are cousins and almost identical people - especially the Arab-Berber community which is what most of Morocco (especially) and Algeria is.
Anyway I am not against multi-ethnic countries (entities - different from societies) but there is a reason why homogenous entities in the region, whether currently or in the recent past, are doing better than diverse or worse, diverse and recently constructed, states whether in the Arab world or Muslim world.
USA/Canada/Latin America/New world cannot be compared with the Arab world, West, Middle East where the oldest and most defined nation states are found.
This has also something to do with more recent history of Iraq and Syria and the foundation of those countries and which entities they were under the influence of in recent centuries. That's for another time.
Interesting discussion that more so-called scholars should be spending time on understanding and finding solutions for (probably most people in power are completely clueless about many of the issues that I have talked about which is sad - or otherwise I am underestimating them - probably) rather than nonsense discussions about who to support 1300 years ago and who was wrong and what not or what regime x or y t support over your country and how to destroy your country and people manual.
Luckily most people are educated and will keep becoming increasingly more educated and knowledgeable (even in the most isolated villages) and the internet and mass media will help ensuring this. However this process should occur quicker and once it has occurred it should result in tangible chances rather than the old story of "tomorrow it will change".
