Which one do you suggest as the axis for unity?

[Maira La]

So in this context when I look at Pakistan I know that we have to move toward some sort of supra state like European Union. I know we can't do it now but then in Europe in 1930 they could not have drreamed either. I think there is sufficient common core between Iran on the basis of history, race, geography top belong to one civilizational complex. I include Afghanistan in it as well. In the long run I know this will happen. Here is the interesting thing. If you look back in history you will often see this region united under some power.

I think just like France-Germany started the European prokect and laid the "axis of unity" I think at some time in the futrure Iran and Pakistan will also do it. Then other countries around us will also join in like what happened in Europe. There is the interesting example of Turkey. As you know in history Anatolia wa also p[art of this domain. I don't think Turkey will join in this. I believe her edestiny is with Europe. The reason is her geography and the shear pull of Europe.

As a interesting asides do you realise that Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan use the same Nastaliq based script? I believe the Turks also used it but they adopted the Roman. The other thing is large part of this region speaks common Iranic languages or related Indo Iranian languages. This is from Kurds in Turkey to Pashtuns in Pakistan.

Excellent and timely idea, but I don't believe a supra-national union between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan can last. Other powers will not let it happen, and if it does, try their best to exploit the religious, ethnic and cultural fault lines to weaken the union.

I'm all for such an union - it's not an option, but a necessity for the continued survival of Pak-Iran-Afghanistan's civilization core. But I'm afraid unless it's a complete political union with a strong central government like China's CCP, it might fall apart (like Egypt and Syria's failed United Arab Republic).

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Excellent and timely idea, but I don't believe a supra-national union between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan can last. Other powers will not let it happen, and if it does, try their best to exploit the religious, ethnic and cultural fault lines to weaken the union.

I'm all for such an union - it's not an option, but a necessity for the continued survival of Pak-Iran-Afghanistan's civilization core. But I'm afraid unless it's a complete political union with a strong central government like China's CCP, it might fall apart (like Egypt and Syria's failed United Arab Republic).

Two points here. First this cannot happen anytime soon. This needs political, economic and social evolution to take place to a point where being Shia or Sunni is not a divisive factor. This will require at least another generation if not more before such a idea can even be comptemplated. I think at this stage countries like Pakistan have not even consolidated construction of a national state yet, so it would be premature to jump the gun at this stage. Others like Iran have but are in the ultra nationalist state like pre war Europe.

When the time comes a loose economic trading group will have to be the starting point. Over time this could evolve like EU did over 50 years. So all in all we are looking at another half a century for things to really take off. Of course the faster we move faster we will get their.

 

[Maira La]

Two points here. First this cannot happen anytime soon. This needs political, economic and social evolution to take place to a point where being Shia or Sunni is not a divisive factor. This will require at least another generation if not more before such a idea can even be comptemplated. I think at this stage countrtries like have not even consolidated construct of national state yet, so it would be premature to jump the gun at this stage.
...
Of course the faster we move faster we will get their.

Would you wait for that to happen? With the widening gap in economic power between Pakistan and its "enemy", you will see continued funding of ethnic-nationalist insurgents and an ever increasing resolve of the hawks from this hostile state to undo your country before you can consolidate anything (God forbid).

Certainly the sooner the better!
Among many reasons, here's an analogy I love to make. I used to love exotic animals and had an aquarium full of piranhas back in my early teen days. All piranha lovers must abide by one golden rule to keep the piranhas alive: if you're going to place more than 1 piranha in an aquarium, then make sure it's more than a certain number (10? can't recall). The rationale was that with only a handful of piranhas, one or a very few will dominate and eat the rest. With numerous Piranhas in a chaotic habitat, somehow we avoid the possibility of a few dominating the rest.

It always worked out and all piranhas survived. Now having said that, can you see India's advantage vis-a-vis Pakistan? See the benefit in merging with neighboring states to dump more ethnicities into the mix? Do I even make sense?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Would you wait for that to happen? With the widening gap in economic power between Pakistan and its "enemy", you will see continued funding of ethnic-nationalist insurgents and an ever increasing resolve of the hawks from this hostile state to undo your country before you can consolidate anything (God forbid).

Certainly the sooner the better!
Among many reasons, here's an analogy I love to make. I used to love exotic animals and had an aquarium full of piranhas back in my early teen days. All piranha lovers must abide by one golden rule to keep the piranhas alive: if you're going to place more than 1 piranha in an aquarium, then make sure it's more than a certain number (10? can't recall). The rationale was that with only a handful of piranhas, one or a very few will dominate and eat the rest. With numerous Piranhas in a chaotic habitat, somehow we avoid the possibility of a few dominating the rest.

It always worked out and all piranhas survived. Now having said that, can you see India's advantage vis-a-vis Pakistan? See the benefit in merging with neighboring states to dump more ethnicities into the mix? Do I even make sense?

You do make sense. Only problem is you had control over the environment and therefore could design it. In this case it will take decades for evolution of people to think beyond tribal, religious, sectarian, ethnic lines and ultra nationalism. So I am thinking over a half century timescale with generation at least before even the first step can be taken. Don't forget it took Europe two bloody wars and almost century of conflict for the angularties to be ironed out. I know we will end there. The geography dictates that. However we have to give it time.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Axis for unity is always an exterior threat or challenge. It is not correct to say nothing is needed.

As an example, Earth will never become united until the day there is an exterior threat or challenge either from other human colonies in other planets in far future or from other species.

There is a very nice book called The Life Cycle of the Civilizations that I highly recommend.

Those threats are always there. Various examples of invasions in the last 30 years illustrates that fact vividly. The real question is to (i) define those threats (ii) build a common structure against those threats. Both (i) and (ii) however require some of form of "axis of unity" or else they will face those threats alone.

In our part of the world we face threats alone despite have lessar resources. On the west they face lesser threats yet pool their resources togather in such bodies a NATO.

 

[New]

The answer to your question is not simple. If your question relates to nation state, that is country than the best "axis of unity" is nationalism. The Turkey is a stellar example of this. However I think your question does not relate to the nation state. We are in 2015 and we have moved into post nation state phase. Today the new evolving order is the "supra state" that is a collection of countries working togather in common good. Examples of this are European Union and even NATO although that covers only one facet but for sure there is significant overlap netween the two.

For a supra state I think there has to be a "axis of unity" and by definition it will be complex composite. This will revolve around a common "civilization" which will have been formed by various variables to some degree. Race, religion, geography and history will have all played in forming that civilizational complex.

When I say religion I don't mean in it's literal or dogmatic sense. That type of religion is often divisive and not unifying. I emtirely secular but i cannot ignore that I hold certain values. Call them cultural. These values have been informed and shaped by religion. So for example I would not feel comfortable if my sister walked in half naked. I have more conservative value than most Europeans despite having grown up in Europe. The reason was at some sublimnal level Islam moulded my thinking.

So in this context when I look at Pakistan I know that we have to move toward some sort of supra state like European Union. I know we can't do it now but then in Europe in 1930 they could not have drreamed either. I think there is sufficient common core between Iran on the basis of history, race, geography top belong to one civilizational complex. I include Afghanistan in it as well. In the long run I know this will happen. Here is the interesting thing. If you look back in history you will often see this region united under some power.

I think just like France-Germany started the European prokect and laid the "axis of unity" I think at some time in the futrure Iran and Pakistan will also do it. Then other countries around us will also join in like what happened in Europe. There is the interesting example of Turkey. As you know in history Anatolia wa also p[art of this domain. I don't think Turkey will join in this. I believe her edestiny is with Europe. The reason is her geography and the shear pull of Europe.

As a interesting asides do you realise that Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan use the same Nastaliq based script? I believe the Turks also used it but they adopted the Roman. The other thing is large part of this region speaks common Iranic languages or related Indo Iranian languages. This is from Kurds in Turkey to Pashtuns in Pakistan.

Of course I know at the present the Shia/Sunni divide is causing divergence but we saw the similar Catholic/Protestant divergance and even wars in Europe. Hoewever as our societies evolve these things will even out. Don't forget being weak we have fallen victim to external forces that have created gulf in our societies.

I have no doubt. I doubt Pakistan is going to join South Amercian Free Trade Association and I don't Iran is off to join the African Union. However this will take time for our societies to emerge, In the meantime we must focus on building our countries up. If Iran is prosperous it is better for Pakistan. If Pakistan is prosperous ditto for Iran.

Germany in 1943 invaded Greece. Today they are spending $100 of billions bailing it out. We have to similary evolve. I think it will take at least another generation for us to reach that level of maturity.

Iranian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Axis for unity is always an exterior threat or challenge. It is not correct to say nothing is needed.

As an example, Earth will never become united until the day there is an exterior threat or challenge either from other human colonies in other planets in far future or from other species.

There is a very nice book called The Life Cycle of the Civilizations that I highly recommend.

First of all let me thank you for your nice and informative input my dear friend.

Regarding your post, in fact there where quite a bunch of interesting points you raised, so let’s try to explore some of them.

We know there were times in history that the cross national aggressions and wars were an inseparable mechanism ruling the planet, in fact the very main threat facing every nation was the external threats. Wars between nations was a common accepted fact in whole the world, and in those times I’m talking about, in the lack of modern technology, countries were forced to plunder in order to supply the resources they needed.

Clinching nationalism, was the best solution to help secure the integrity of a nation, in the face of the waves of external existential threats in those days.

But nationalism is a cure best for the times of war, but in a post war situation it’s no more the best solution to be clinched.

Nationalism in a situation when over border threats aren’t existing can’t be any help preventing internal (inter border) dispersion, and more than that nationalistic mentality can’t prosper in a peace era where cross nation trade and economy should be promoted.

So could religion be an all-time solution?

As someone interested in the concept of history you should very well know the necessity of gaining lessons from the past and not to let history repeat himself. Religion just like nationalism, works the best in the times of battle and ideological wars, also in contrast to nationality, religion has proven its performance in securing internal unity and integrity in the peace times, via its ability to create self-made crisis.

But as someone interested in the course of history, can you name a single theocracy in whole the history, not leading into a black political repression and oppression at the end?

At the end let me raise another very interesting point in your post, in fact the European union is something very interesting to explore, in fact the elements of unity and the axis for integrity has for centuries, but thousands been available there, but unity wasn’t reached unless the time came that it wasn’t just the ruling boards and the governments, trying to preach unity among the nations but it was every single man and women stricken by the devastating disasters of two catastrophic wars, that were panting to clinch every bit of common point to form a unity around.

Are the people in Middle East in that form of internal state? That’s something yet to be answered

@Daneshmand, I'd also be glad to hear your input bro.

 

[Daneshmand]

It is quite complicated to answer the question raised. And probably no one has the definitive answer. Depends on alot of things from internal environment of a society to external factors outside that society to psychology etc.

But probably at its core convincing people to join for a long term common cause needs strong persuasion. Specially if this is to be a stable arrangement running for centuries in case of a country for instance, wherein alot of other thing might change over time, for example social attitudes, cultural values, economic conditions and even race or religion or sect. So this persuasion must be quite robust.

Aristotle describes in his book "on rhetoric", three modes of persuasion, which I think are pretty much are used for state formation as well. These are ethos, pathos and logos. Probably these come from natural tendencies of humanity.

In early state formations during ancient times, probably the most important element was ethos. The community used to come around a central figure. A prophet, a Bhudda, a Moses or around a strongman like a Pharaoh or a king. Still these can be seen today. Whether in real life when a populist leader exerts authority over a populace or in fiction eg. the superman, the super stars and their likes.

The pathos are the emotional appeal. Things such as "patriotism" and "nationalism" are part of it. Specially in case of new nations, the "flag" and "anthem" are considered very important and sacred. In case of older countries, a set of ancient mythos with an oral tradition play the central role. And then there are modern mythos which are being constantly created. Some others find emotional foundation in opposition to external factors and many other such examples.

Then we have logos. This has been becoming more of an important factor in state formation and national unity since the advent of printing press and spread of education for general masses. People rationally start to see the benefits of being united in a common cause for a more stable and more successful society. They can see beyond ethos and pathos and can on individual level understand their needs and the logical ways to meet those needs in most efficient way in a long term sustainable fashion. The individuals of a society whose main uniting force comes from logos, must be very self-aware and thoughtful.

Overall things like race or sect can not be long term uniting force. Specially into the future. Within this century humanity will start to engineer itself. We already engineer other objects but the era of human engineering whether through human-machine interfacing or genetical engineering is upon us. So the race is out. Sect, religion or any other ideology are also out. Since the uniting force of a country should be so deep that even if people change their mind over matters of religion and ideology, they do not become unstable and disappear. A good example of which is Iran itself. Iran changed its religion from Zoroastrianism to Islam and still survived. Iran then changed its sect from Sunni to Shia and survived.

Ethnicity is also out. The concept of ethnicity actually is a tribal and primitive concept. In the era of genetics, the only way to categorize humanity is through genetic analysis. Many who believe that they are part of an ethnic group actually have more in common with another ethnic group than with the one they identify themselves with. As logos become important, the concepts such as ethnicity or race get thrown out of the window.

Nationality or citizenship are just social contracts between a state and the citizens. They can not be on their own a uniting force. They rather exist because of the uniting force which creates a country. They can't exist on their own.

Over all, the best country in my opinion is the one which has an institutionalized system which has permeated the popular culture of that nation, with a healthy combination of pathos and logos, in which the ethos and the means to create common good are selected by the people through elections. In a sense in such a system the altruism becomes the binding force of that nation.

 

[Arminkh]

First of all let me thank you for your nice and informative input my dear friend.

Regarding your post, in fact there where quite a bunch of interesting points you raised, so let’s try to explore some of them.

We know there were times in history that the cross national aggressions and wars were an inseparable mechanism ruling the planet, in fact the very main threat facing every nation was the external threats. Wars between nations was a common accepted fact in whole the world, and in those times I’m talking about, in the lack of modern technology, countries were forced to plunder in order to supply the resources they needed.

Clinching nationalism, was the best solution to help secure the integrity of a nation, in the face of the waves of external existential threats in those days.

But nationalism is a cure best for the times of war, but in a post war situation it’s no more the best solution to be clinched.

Nationalism in a situation when over border threats aren’t existing can’t be any help preventing internal (inter border) dispersion, and more than that nationalistic mentality can’t prosper in a peace era where cross nation trade and economy should be promoted.

So could religion be an all-time solution?

As someone interested in the concept of history you should very well know the necessity of gaining lessons from the past and not to let history repeat himself. Religion just like nationalism, works the best in the times of battle and ideological wars, also in contrast to nationality, religion has proven its performance in securing internal unity and integrity in the peace times, via its ability to create self-made crisis.

But as someone interested in the course of history, can you name a single theocracy in whole the history, not leading into a black political repression and oppression at the end?

At the end let me raise another very interesting point in your post, in fact the European union is something very interesting to explore, in fact the elements of unity and the axis for integrity has for centuries, but thousands were available there, but unity wasn’t reached unless the time came that it wasn’t just the ruling boards and the governments, trying to preach unity among the nations but it was every single man and women stricken by the devastating disasters of two catastrophic wars, that were panting to clinch every bit of common point to form a unity around.

Are the people in Middle East in that form of internal state? That’s something yet to be answered

@Daneshmand, I'd also be glad to hear your input bro.

I usually refrain from lengthy posts but in order to better expand my point, I need to write a bit more than I usually do.

In a nutshell, none of the above items like race, religion, nationalism and etc will bring actual unity. Those items are all result of a group of people live and sticking together for enough time. They are a bi-products of unity. I will expand on this further down but as I mentioned unity is always a result of external threat or challenge. Actually the word carries this fact itself. If you come across a group of people who say we are united, then the next question that you will naturally ask is: "united against what?". The answer is the external threat or challenge that I mentioned.

We need to differentiate between states and/or unions of nations and actual unity. We have many countries that call themselves nations or states but they are not united. They were not formed as a response to an external threat or challenge. They were born because one dictator or family decided they'd like to have their own country to rule or one of the world powers decided such country's existence better serves it's interests. These countries are called Nation Estates. But they are not united. They usually fall into chaos or civil war and break in pieces as soon as the original cause of their existence is gone. We have some good examples in our world that I will skip naming as I don't want to step on anyone's tail but you know what I mean. If they last long enough, they will develop some sense of nationalism in the long run which may help them last longer.

Now before I get to other type of states, I need to refer to system theory. This theory categorizes all systems into nine groups. The first group is Mechanical Systems like Planets that have a predefined orbit and are in a estate of stability in their own system. It goes up to self regulating mechanical system and micro organisms, plants,.... and finally the eighth group is the Humans and the ninth is the Society. The important point of this theory which has real world application is that any higher system inherits the characters of lower systems while it posses more complicated features. For example, Humans have the characteristics of microorganisms plus a lot more.

One implication of the above is that societies or civilizations are born, mature, age and die like humans because they inherit it from their predecessor system. What triggers their birth is a threat or challenge.

I said the above in order to point out that even for a country like Iran where people have lived together in a confined geography for a very long time, there hasn't been a consistent living civilization extending for 2500 years. We have became united and formed civilizations as a response to exterior threats at least two times. First, the Persian Civilization which was born as a response to the Medes threats then it went through its life cycle which according to the book that I referred to in my first post is usually 1000 years for each civilization, and then it died. Arabs invaded us just when our unity was gone as a result of the dying civilization so all the other bi-products like common religion, race, nationalism and etc was not enough to keep us united against Arabs. Otherwise there was no way for them to conquer Iran.

There were some centuries of chaos and small states here and there until the second Iranian civilization was formed as a response to the threat from the Arab world itself. We adopted Shia and differentiated ourselves and formed another civilization which I personally think died at the end of Qajar dynasty. Now a new civilization is born as a response to the threats from British empire and later USA. And it is still in its infancy.

A nation like Iran is called a civilization estate. It is born as response to an external threat and then lasts long enough so that they develop their own race, culture, national identity and even religion. China is another example of such estate.

We probably were blessed that there was always some kind of external threat that kept us together and allowed us to remain united and keep creating civilizations. Other nations were not so lucky.

In case of Europe, they have come together as a response to the perceived threat of USA overshadowing their culture and economy. But the severity of the threat determines the strength of unity. USA's threat is a soft one thus much less unity. As you can see every now and then there are talks about one of the countries jumping out of the union.

Another good example of how external threat determines how strong and united a nation will become is the case of Canada and USA. They were born at the same time with same race and same culture. Canada has never really sensed any credible external threat. The only time Canada was ever invaded was back in 1812 by USA. It was always supported by Britain and thus when you compare, their sense of nationalism and unity is much weaker than that of USA. On the other hand USA was formed as a response to threats from Britain that lasted for almost one century. Then it was at odds with Spanish empire. Then it was threatened by Germany and Japan and later by Soviet Union. Even now when there is actually no threat, the leaders try to convince their people that there are other threats like Iran, North Korea, Terrorism and etc. As they well know, as soon as that external perceived threat is gone, they will start to loose their unity.

 

[Whazzup]

IMHO Its different for different regions , how educated is the society , and how many different kind of religion people are following and if that society is following some sort of a system (like Casteism in case of India) .

now I voted for Nationality cause its the nationality which prevailed when others failed How? cause in our past Indian sub continent have seen three kind attempts to form axis for unity we first saw Religion based before the invasion of Mughals then we saw an attempt to unite ourselves to fight against Babur , Rana Sanga tried to do that on the basis of Ethnicity by mixing both Hindu and Muslims rajputs (who were more close to us culturally than than their muslim brothers) both attempts failed . Then our region was occupied by British there were many wars muslims fighting brits and hindu fighting at their fronts Sikhs were too busy on their own but we didn't gained independence . We got independence when Hindus , Muslims , Sikhs and everyone else joined hands and together we defeated one of the strongest power of that time.Yes we did got separated but just because we didn't got time to mature as a Nationality.
Now I'm sure Nationality not the strongest(it will be race) but it is the most successful as it can join religion,different ethnic groups , sects and races.

Now we never experienced sect and race . Sect will fail without any doubts cause there will always be some elements in the society which will share different views for their religious brothers and such a society might gets divided on views . Now a community based on racism will be most united without any doubts but It will not be a successful system in todays dynamic world as a race can never see another society in good light their problems will be more like External one.

So race will be most united but will still fail in global world. So go nationality go.
@New

 

[Azizam]

Interesting topic but everyone seems to miss a critical point. The way how unity is perceived in the East can be best achieved by presenting an external threat but in a globalised world, this method is no longer reliable. Now we should look at how unity is maintained in an extremely diverse nation like the USA. The answer is individualism. Unity among diverse groups is difficult to be maintained in a collectivist Eastern society since more often than not, each group tend to move towards a path of segregation in the form of religion, ethnicity, language or some other reason but in the individualistic west, each individual tends see him only as another individual looking after his/her own imterests and working towards personal goals rather than thinking oneself as part of a group thus eliminating problems such as segregation. This is why I think individualism is the best axis for unity.

 

[Maira La]

I usually refrain from lengthy posts but in order to better expand my point, I need to write a bit more than I usually do.

In a nutshell, none of the above items like race, religion, nationalism and etc will bring actual unity. Those items are all result of a group of people live and sticking together for enough time. They are a bi-products of unity. I will expand on this further down but as I mentioned unity is always a result of external threat or challenge. Actually the word carries this fact itself. If you come across a group of people who say we are united, then the next question that you will naturally ask is: "united against what?". The answer is the external threat or challenge that I mentioned.

We need to differentiate between states and/or unions of nations and actual unity. We have many countries that call themselves nations or states but they are not united. They were not formed as a response to an external threat or challenge. They were born because one dictator or family decided they'd like to have their own country to rule or one of the world powers decided such country's existence better serves it's interests. These countries are called Nation Estates. But they are not united. They usually fall into chaos or civil war and break in pieces as soon as the original cause of their existence is gone. We have some good examples in our world that I will skip naming as I don't want to step on anyone's tail but you know what I mean. If they last long enough, they will develop some sense of nationalism in the long run which may help them last longer.

Now before I get to other type of states, I need to refer to system theory. This theory categorizes all systems into nine groups. The first group is Mechanical Systems like Planets that have a predefined orbit and are in a estate of stability in their own system. It goes up to self regulating mechanical system and micro organisms, plants,.... and finally the eighth group is the Humans and the ninth is the Society. The important point of this theory which has real world application is that any higher system inherits the characters of lower systems while it posses more complicated features. For example, Humans have the characteristics of microorganisms plus a lot more.

One implication of the above is that societies or civilizations are born, mature, age and die like humans because they inherit it from their predecessor system. What triggers their birth is a threat or challenge.

I said the above in order to point out that even for a country like Iran where people have lived together in a confined geography for a very long time, there hasn't been a consistent living civilization extending for 2500 years. We have became united and formed civilizations as a response to exterior threats at least two times. First, the Persian Civilization which was born as a response to the Medes threats then it went through its life cycle which according to the book that I referred to in my first post is usually 1000 years for each civilization, and then it died. Arabs invaded us just when our unity was gone as a result of the dying civilization so all the other bi-products like common religion, race, nationalism and etc was not enough to keep us united against Arabs. Otherwise there was no way for them to conquer Iran.

There were some centuries of chaos and small states here and there until the second Iranian civilization was formed as a response to the threat from the Arab world itself. We adopted Shia and differentiated ourselves and formed another civilization which I personally think died at the end of Qajar dynasty. Now a new civilization is born as a response to the threats from British empire and later USA. And it is still in its infancy.

A nation like Iran is called a civilization estate. It is born as response to an external threat and then lasts long enough so that they develop their own race, culture, national identity and even religion. China is another example of such estate.

We probably were blessed that there was always some kind of external threat that kept us together and allowed us to remain united and keep creating civilizations. Other nations were not so lucky.

In case of Europe, they have come together as a response to the perceived threat of USA overshadowing their culture and economy. But the severity of the threat determines the strength of unity. USA's threat is a soft one thus much less unity. As you can see every now and then there are talks about one of the countries jumping out of the union.

Another good example of how external threat determines how strong and united a nation will become is the case of Canada and USA. They were born at the same time with same race and same culture. Canada has never really sensed any credible external threat. The only time Canada was ever invaded was back in 1812 by USA. It was always supported by Britain and thus when you compare, their sense of nationalism and unity is much weaker than that of USA. On the other hand USA was formed as a response to threats from Britain that lasted for almost one century. Then it was at odds with Spanish empire. Then it was threatened by Germany and Japan and later by Soviet Union. Even now when there is actually no threat, the leaders try to convince their people that there are other threats like Iran, North Korea, Terrorism and etc. As they well know, as soon as that external perceived threat is gone, they will start to loose their unity.

How I wish I could award you a positive rating! Enlightening and a very refreshing perspective!

 

[Arminkh]

How I wish I could award you a positive rating! Enlightening and a very refreshing perspective!

You did. Thank you!

 

[The SiLent crY]

Depends on where we're talking about .

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I usually refrain from lengthy posts but in order to better expand my point, I need to write a bit more than I usually do.

In a nutshell, none of the above items like race, religion, nationalism and etc will bring actual unity. Those items are all result of a group of people live and sticking together for enough time. They are a bi-products of unity. I will expand on this further down but as I mentioned unity is always a result of external threat or challenge. Actually the word carries this fact itself. If you come across a group of people who say we are united, then the next question that you will naturally ask is: "united against what?". The answer is the external threat or challenge that I mentioned.

We need to differentiate between states and/or unions of nations and actual unity. We have many countries that call themselves nations or states but they are not united. They were not formed as a response to an external threat or challenge. They were born because one dictator or family decided they'd like to have their own country to rule or one of the world powers decided such country's existence better serves it's interests. These countries are called Nation Estates. But they are not united. They usually fall into chaos or civil war and break in pieces as soon as the original cause of their existence is gone. We have some good examples in our world that I will skip naming as I don't want to step on anyone's tail but you know what I mean. If they last long enough, they will develop some sense of nationalism in the long run which may help them last longer.

Now before I get to other type of states, I need to refer to system theory. This theory categorizes all systems into nine groups. The first group is Mechanical Systems like Planets that have a predefined orbit and are in a estate of stability in their own system. It goes up to self regulating mechanical system and micro organisms, plants,.... and finally the eighth group is the Humans and the ninth is the Society. The important point of this theory which has real world application is that any higher system inherits the characters of lower systems while it posses more complicated features. For example, Humans have the characteristics of microorganisms plus a lot more.

One implication of the above is that societies or civilizations are born, mature, age and die like humans because they inherit it from their predecessor system. What triggers their birth is a threat or challenge.

I said the above in order to point out that even for a country like Iran where people have lived together in a confined geography for a very long time, there hasn't been a consistent living civilization extending for 2500 years. We have became united and formed civilizations as a response to exterior threats at least two times. First, the Persian Civilization which was born as a response to the Medes threats then it went through its life cycle which according to the book that I referred to in my first post is usually 1000 years for each civilization, and then it died. Arabs invaded us just when our unity was gone as a result of the dying civilization so all the other bi-products like common religion, race, nationalism and etc was not enough to keep us united against Arabs. Otherwise there was no way for them to conquer Iran.

There were some centuries of chaos and small states here and there until the second Iranian civilization was formed as a response to the threat from the Arab world itself. We adopted Shia and differentiated ourselves and formed another civilization which I personally think died at the end of Qajar dynasty. Now a new civilization is born as a response to the threats from British empire and later USA. And it is still in its infancy.

A nation like Iran is called a civilization estate. It is born as response to an external threat and then lasts long enough so that they develop their own race, culture, national identity and even religion. China is another example of such estate.

We probably were blessed that there was always some kind of external threat that kept us together and allowed us to remain united and keep creating civilizations. Other nations were not so lucky.

In case of Europe, they have come together as a response to the perceived threat of USA overshadowing their culture and economy. But the severity of the threat determines the strength of unity. USA's threat is a soft one thus much less unity. As you can see every now and then there are talks about one of the countries jumping out of the union.

Another good example of how external threat determines how strong and united a nation will become is the case of Canada and USA. They were born at the same time with same race and same culture. Canada has never really sensed any credible external threat. The only time Canada was ever invaded was back in 1812 by USA. It was always supported by Britain and thus when you compare, their sense of nationalism and unity is much weaker than that of USA. On the other hand USA was formed as a response to threats from Britain that lasted for almost one century. Then it was at odds with Spanish empire. Then it was threatened by Germany and Japan and later by Soviet Union. Even now when there is actually no threat, the leaders try to convince their people that there are other threats like Iran, North Korea, Terrorism and etc. As they well know, as soon as that external perceived threat is gone, they will start to loose their unity.

Whilst I agree with your contention about external stimuli enforcing unity however this alone fails to explain everything. The subject we are talking about is a complex of so many variables operating, impacting on and being impacted by the social matrix of the country.

Take for example Canada. It is a extremely successful state yet you would struggle to find any external threat to it's existance. Also the borders are about as artificial as you can get, Most of it just a plain ruler line running along the lattitude. The border divides exactly similar cultures, peoples, languages, religion between USA and Canada.

Then you have the multiethnic Switzerland which has three languages and three ethnic groups. Yet despite this it has been also a very succcessful state. I might add here that the Swiss have not been really been exposed to external threats as much as many other European countries.

On the other hand, Somalia is primarily one ethnic group country, one religion yet has collapsed. So this should tell us that we need to revisit our model of "axis of unity". I think we need to look at other factors.

(i) The state must enjoy absolute sanction - By this I mean the state must have at it's disposal sufficient power to crush any groups or challanges to it's writ. In other words absolute power. This can only be possible if the state has access to sufficient economic means as to be able to sustain the instrument of absolute power. In other words the military arm.

(ii) Even with (i) in place there should exist a compact between the indivduel and the state which requires the following.
(a) That the state shall deliver social and economic justice. In practical this means making sure that the safety of the citizens, social, economic health of the indviduels are safeguarded and enabled.

I think these above requirements are the most important. As long as these are met that state will remain stable. Canada and Swizerlandare fine examples where they have been very successful on both (i) and (ii) and you can see the stability there.

Of course if you have similar culture, similar language , similar race that can lubricate everything. However by itself that is insufficient as case of Somalia shows.

***
Now a word or two about European Union. I bought a tropical plant last year. Year later it is in my living room next to the window and it has grown quite large as it grew along the trellis I secured to the wall.. In the safety of my warm room, me watering every day the plant has flourished. In the same way European Union ( EU ) is a product of various factors.

One being a common shared civilization (Western ) all have this Greco-Roman myth and firmy regard they are secular products of a Christian evolution of the Greco-Roman tradition. However all these countries were not long ago busy fighting and in state of constant rivalry similar to how we are now in our part of the world.

The unity you see today was nurtured by America. USA provided the military muscle in Westen Europe that defeated Germany. At the end of WW2 almost every West European country had US Army units that either had liberated those countries or had been deployed their in defeating Germany.

Thus Europe came under American military wing including West Germany. Eastern Europe came under Russian military control. Under US military power and the backbone provided by it European Union took root in the Franco-German alliance which evolved into what we see today.

However never let be fooled that this EU grew like my plant under the wing provided by US military backbone which itself has evolved into the NATO. Therefore EC is just a extention of USA and collectively we can call it the Western World. Uncle Sam is literally uncle of these Western countries. You in Iran should know that. If USA says no trade with Iran you will see most of the West fall in line.

The problem is in our part of the world we don't have such a "big boss" who will impose unity. We as countries are just going to have to mature and slowly build a block because we are now living in the age of "super-state". Sadly in our part of the world we have barely moved past tribal, sectarian, ethinc lines. Probably Iran and Turkey are at the level of "national state" with Turkey just about on the cusp of moving into the European super state.

This can be seen how they are slowly changing their laws in tune with EU. also in Europe the people are slowly being converted to the idea of Turkey being "European". Maybe 10 or 20 years time Turkey will be in EU. Even the Turkish membership is being pushed by American's.

I think EC will than erect it's final frontier on the Turk/Iran border. Azerbaijhan will also go down the EU route and is being prepared for that.

 

[mohsen]

Add moral values.