By: Abdulkariem Aljrbi
In our contemporary world, the efficiency of administration is not measured solely by its application of modern organizational procedures, but by its ability to overcome social and cultural barriers that hinder the establishment of a genuine civil life. Here lies the essential difference between societies that have adopted modern civil administration and those still bound by traditional structures such as tribe and family.
Civil Life as an Entry Point to Administration
The administrative model in countries described as democratic is based on the concept of legal individualism, where each person, male or female, is treated as an independent unit, autonomous in will, responsible for their decisions, and required to reach the legal age (18 years) to enjoy full civil rights. Within this framework, belonging to a national identity and participating in public administration become natural and aligned with institutional structures.
This individualistic philosophy is what defines civil life, the foundation upon which democratic values are rooted, because responsibility is built on free choice rather than tribal, familial, or ethnic affiliation. In such an environment, institutions can operate efficiently because the citizen is a full partner in decision-making and in bearing its outcomes.
The Social Structure as a Key Factor in Administrative Dysfunction
Most Arab countries suffer from a different administrative pattern, where loyalty to tribe, family, and community outweighs loyalty to the state or institutions. This structure complicates the application of modern administration because it redefines the citizen, not as a free, independent individual, but as an extension of a collective identity. This creates a constant conflict between civil values and tribal values, and between their influence on individuals, whether through social pressure or through the adoption of “herd mentality,” which makes people follow tribal or family leaders. In such a social environment, institutions cannot function efficiently because the citizen becomes fully bound by the tribe’s or family’s decisions.
Furthermore, in societies where tribal structures overlap with the civil lives of individuals who do not belong to tribes, these minorities cannot secure their rights in the face of the overwhelming dominance of the tribe. If elections take place, the tribe mobilizes all its weight to support its chosen candidate, while minorities focus on seeking competence. In the end, the tribe dominates the key institutions of the state, the region, or the cities in which it is concentrated.
In this context, public administration becomes conditioned by factors outside the framework of merit, such as favoritism, family affiliation, and “connections,” undermining institutional justice and weakening the rule of law.
Similarly, tribes, such as Indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada, are heavily shaped by tribal or ethnic social structures. Being minorities, they become isolated from the rest of the civil society, placing them in a position of weakness that requires sympathy and special treatment because they have separated themselves from the fabric of the state and remained attached to the tribal or ethnic structure they belong to.
Historical Solutions… The Example of Islam
One of the historical solutions that reduced the impact of tribalism in societies is the Islamic model, which transformed the tribal society into one bound by religious brotherhood, establishing the principle of equality among individuals.
If we imagine democracy as a “belief system” similar to religion, we will find it does not reach the level of religious doctrine, and here we benefit from the experience without applying it literally due to the difference between doctrine and thought. Religion is a doctrine with deep implications in individual and social life, whereas democracy is an ideology open to debate and rejection.
Raising slogans of citizenship and justice is not enough unless there is a clear mechanism imposed from above, through law, education, and state policies, to neutralize tribal and ethnic structures that conflict with modern civil life and democracy, transforming them into a unified national identity.
Is Ignoring Enough? The Case of the U.S. and Canada
Anyone who thinks tribal or ethnic identity disappears through neglect or time should look at the experience of Indigenous peoples in Canada and the United States. Despite centuries of modern administration, these communities still suffer from social isolation, weak education, and high crime rates, due to the persistence of tribal and ethnic structures and the state’s inability to integrate them into the civil fabric upon which the nation is built. This is largely due to the lack of a true vision that ensures equality among all societal components.
This confirms that the absence of an effective integration mechanism within the national identity means that marginalized communities will remain trapped in cycles of exclusion, poverty, and corruption. Democracy does not grow in an environment of identity fragmentation, but requires a cohesive civil foundation.
The Theory of Dissolution
From this standpoint, I present a theoretical perspective linking the strength of the state and the success of administration and democracy to its ability, through a clear strategy, to dismantle non-institutional traditional loyalties while considering the intellectual or ideological loyalty of the group, whether it is a tribe, family, or ethnicity, and transforming these loyalties into civil ones.
The more the state is capable of enforcing legal equality, and the more administration treats people as individuals rather than members of tribes or ethnic groups, the more the path is paved for a genuine democracy to emerge.
I will reserve the proposals that may offer potential solutions for such states.
The End