Binary thinking has defined much of contemporary Arab political thought. Of course, every notion has a binary opposite: colonialism is the opposite of independence and liberation, occupation is the opposite of resistance, reaction is the opposite of progressivism, fragmentation is the opposite of unity, and we confront backwardness through progress.
Our conception of matters along these conclusive lines can be attributed to multiple sources. One of them is a heritage brimming with absolutes that go back to time immemorial and are often safeguarded by the sacred. Among the products of this frame of mind are dichotomies like right and wrong, good and evil, and black and white. The modern source is associated with Hegelian philosophy, especially its Marxist revision, with history seen as a series of contradictions between antitheses whose struggles lead us to higher stages over a long path toward advancement.
Following a purist approach to interpretation that leaves no room for any reconciliation between opposite sides of the binary, the term "eclecticism" emerged to point the finger at anyone who does reconcile them by incorporating elements from the opposite side, or does not totally abide by the narrative of the correct side about itself.
It seems that the hold of absolute binary thinking on our consciousness, and the success of the “what” in effacing the "how" and marginalizing it, can shut the door to processes and dynamics, or that we have at least seen stark examples of this in mainstream Arab political culture. Mind you, the foundational texts of modern political thought, those of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, were primarily focused on the processes, methods, and dynamics of governance, as well as laying out the rights and duties of the relationship between those who govern and the governed. Indeed, this is where the scope of politics expands, and it is the reason politics has the capacity to constrain violence and reduce the scale of death fueled by unyielding commitments to radical causes that can only be resolved radically. There is no other way to open the door to the rich possibilities, and unexpected developments and novelties, that reality offers and that insular narratives of predetermined binaries cannot foresee.
Accordingly, there is a pressing need, stemming from an array of factors, for reaching arrangements and compromises. One is the lack of a balance of power that allows for ending the contradiction between the two antitheses through a shining victory on one side and a crushing defeat on the other. Moreover, the conditions of societies, or the capabilities and capacities of their people, might not withstand the costs required to decisively resolve such contradictions. In our interconnected world, the boundaries between "here" and "there" have narrowed, and many find themselves adopting lots of positions that are difficult to neatly categorize into this or that side of the binary. This dynamic can plant seeds of contradiction within each opposing side, leading the conflict between the two likely to shift into an internal struggle within each side. Moreover, technological progress introduces factors whose role in shaping the nature and structure of conflicts cannot be ignored. For example, while it is valid to claim that those who are occupied have a legitimate right to occupation, technological gaps could render violence obsolete as a form of resistance, confining resistance to political, cultural, and economic efforts. Moreover, new ideas and technicalities that had not been known to us can now be used to resolve contradictions, such as compensation, exchange, or third-party arbitration. In some cases, addressing issues, if their costs become too high to bear at a given time, could be deferred until different circumstances, or even future generations, emerge...
We have already seen figures and parties known for their strong ideological inclinations seek to reconcile Marxism with conceptions that allow for greater acknowledgment of the role of politics. Others took the eclectic approach that theories of absolute binary opposites denounce. While "Third World" radicals were bogged down in "wars of existence, not borders" and "battles of survival and annihilation," their Western counterparts followed a different path. In the 1970s, for instance, the Italian, Spanish, and French communist parties developed "Eurocommunism," which sought to align with their continent’s parliamentary democracy. Italian communists even made a "historic compromise" to share power with Christian Democrats. Two decades earlier, some hardened ideologues in the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev, endorsed "peaceful coexistence" with capitalism and acknowledged that socialism could be achieved through parliamentary means and not exclusively through revolution.
From a different position, the late Tunisian president Habib Bourguiba may have been among the first figures to challenge the culture of absolute binaries in the Arab world. He argued that Tunisia’s independence from France would lose much of its value if it resulted in a deterioration of its relationship with French culture or a rupture. Unfortunately, this historic position has none of the appeal associated with Algeria’s path to independence, which was paved by the sacrifice of "a million martyrs."
We could attribute the hegemony of absolute binaries in our consciousness to the weakness of empirical and utilitarian approaches in Arab political thought. It may also stem from the limited organic cohesion of our social structures, as one matter rarely impacts or reflects on another, or from the hardships of many historical episodes and the challenges they presented. Yet, one could invert this formula and claim that adopting a different approach could have mitigated that hardship and challenges of these episodes. But that, of course, is another matter altogether.
