After the guns have relatively fallen silent and the voices of extremism, which often fuel entrenchment and sharp polarization, have subsided, a question now presents itself at every turn in Yemen. Simple on the surface, it is deeply problematic beneath it: where do you stand on the recent developments? Do you support what has occurred or reject it?
True, life is defined by positions, especially at major national junctures. Personally, I have always been and always will be in favor of a federal project for Yemen. However, clear positions do not entail acquiescence to the underlying logic of the question itself. This question is not intended to foster understanding so much as it is meant to enforce alignment and fuel polarization, and it is not meant to open horizons so much as to shut down debate.
Answering it, regardless of the answer given, will not change the facts on the ground. The question that must be confronted instead, because it is more dangerous and more unsettling: how did we get here in the first place? What made this path possible, even predictable?
Yemen is not currently deviating from a sound trajectory. Rather, recent developments are the logical outcome of faulty grounds that had been acted on for a long period: failure to build an inclusive state, inability to manage diversity, privileging of foreign agendas, and persistently seeking domination over the agreement and consensus. Those who do not acknowledge these problems cannot acknowledge their consequences.
The problem in Yemen has never been the existence of diversity, but its transformation from a historical fact into a political burden. Yemen was never a structurally homogeneous society, nor a solid centralized state; it has always been divided into regions with rich local customs and systems, creating a delicate balance between center and periphery. Nonetheless, it was not a society of warring identities; it was a single, administrable society when appropriate political frameworks allowed for this.
Every moment of relative stability in Yemeni history has been associated with a reduction in the logic of domination and an expansion of the circles of partnership, while every moment of crisis has been associated with claims to absolute dominance, monopolization of representation, and the imposition of a fait accompli. This is not a selective reading of history; it is a consistent pattern.
Political turbulence has always been triggered and sustained by the suspension of diversity through a single framework of a single, overarching identity. Instead of being managed, diverse identities shifted from a space of belonging into a tool of political alignment and conflict. Once we arrive at this point, the question is no longer: who are we? It becomes: who is with us and who is against us? Here, identity was transformed from a living, flowing river capable of multiplicity into a stone we hurl at the other.
Alongside the logic of domination, corruption became a defining feature of governance, not an incidental deviation. Major national causes - from the state to unity to war - were instrumentalized as cover for private interests and the accumulation of power by narrow networks. Corruption is not limited to the embezzlement of resources; the meaning of public meaning itself is corrupted when the state becomes a space for distributing spoils, public office becomes property, and national causes become investments. In such a climate, political discourse becomes inconsequential and the legitimacy of elites is undermined, and the door opens to more violent forces that claim purification while reproducing corruption through more vicious means.
Federalism is neither the root of the crisis nor a magical solution for. It is part of the Yemeni experience, but it becomes a blessing only within the framework of a modern and just state. In the absence of the state, decentralization turns into chaos; in the absence of justice, unity becomes coercion. The problem is not the form, but the substance of the state.
The same applies to the tribe. It is a deeply rooted mode of social organization that has underpinned the protection and organization of individuals, but tribalism has always been a dead end as a mode of governance. The confusion between social realities and instruments of power has contributed to the erosion of citizenship and to the replacement of law with kinship loyalties.
In this context, the National Dialogue Conference cannot be trivialized. It is not valuable because it offers final solutions. It is crucial because it breaks the monopoly of violence over political questions and opens a horizon for thinking about alternatives that are not based on domination. Dialogue was not the end of the road, but its beginning; the mistake lay not in the process itself, but in aborting the process by force or sanctifying its outcomes without development.
Within this framework, the response of our brothers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, true to its usual role, which was to call southern figures and components to convene an inclusive conference addressing the southern issue in its historical, social, and above all political dimensions, constitutes a serious opportunity to test the transition from the logic of domination to the logic of politics. The value of this step does not lie in offering a ready-made solution, but in opening political space to address a long-postponed issue through dialogue that does not rely on exclusion or the imposition of a faits accompli. If handled wisely, it could be a milestone on the path of our larger struggle to restore the state.
The logic of domination has been a common thread of most moments of destruction in Yemen’s history. A state built by force is destroyed by force, and a society governed through exclusion does nothing but postpone conflict. This is the lesson of cruel experiences that Yemenis have paid the price for time and again.
Yemen is not isolated from the world and its shifts. It is surrounded by countries that are rethinking their governance models, decentralization, and frameworks for managing diversity. Accordingly, Yemen cannot be governed by the logic of spoils, revenge, or the settling of historical scores.
Thus, the fundamental question remains: how do we build a just state that can accommodate the diversity of all Yemenis and put an end to this vicious cycle of subjugation and division? Slogans and easy alignments are not a way out of the impasse. Moral and intellectual courage is needed to confront difficult questions.
There is always an opportunity, but the real fear is that it will be squandered once again.
