درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The complexity of global order is often obscured by the oversimplified representations of international relations, illustrated through political maps. These maps, while seemingly objective, are subjective projections that reflect the ideology of their creators and fail to capture the nuanced dynamics of power and control among states. Such a misrepresentation contributes to a distorted understanding of global dynamics. Meanwhile, the origins of political geography can be traced back to the 18th century, particularly with the establishment of the first school of political geography in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, between 1720 and 1750. Political geography, however, is not entirely homogenic; it encompasses several competing theories regarding the perception of space. It has developed gradually with the changes in perception of space: as an absolute, relative and cognitive space respectively. Recognizing the complexity and evolutionary features of a political map and political geography as whole thus appears to be crucial for understanding global politics.

This study aims to investigate Saudi Arabia’s quest for regional hegemony, including its objectives, initiatives, and difficulties. In other words, the degree to which Saudi Arabia has been successful in establishing itself as the region’s dominant power. It is crucial to thoroughly explain Saudi Arabia’s psychological and practical justifications for pursuing regional hegemony in this context. To examine the political discourses, reality, narratives, ambitions, and perspectives of Saudi Arabia and compare these with other regional powers in this area, as well as to highlight a number of context-specific constraints on Saudi Arabia’s aspirations for regional hegemony, is the goal of the research. In addition, it intends to investigate how external powers such as the United States, China, Russia, the European Union, and Turkey influence Middle Eastern regional dynamics based on their own vested interests. This analysis demonstrates that Saudi Arabia’s drive for regional hegemony is mostly restrained by external causes. First, despite its preeminent economic power, the country lacks strong military capabilities to provide a security shield for its friends in this region. Second, the sectarian politics and undiversified economy of the region make it unlikely that secondary nations will receive full public goods. Third, low economic integration, the perception of a common regional threat, the absence of a broad free trade arrangement, the superiority of hard power over soft power, and a lack of mutual trust among regional countries are significantly diminishing the acceptance of Saudi Arabia’s hegemonic role in the region. However, Saudi Arabia is deliberately involving regional partners and coalitions in regional growth. The country takes on the main task for reshaping the Middle East’s economy and elevating this region to success. If Saudi Arabia is successful in fostering regional integration, offering a security shield, encouraging trust building, and collaborating with other states in this region to address shared regional threats, it will have a greater chance than the majority of other states in the region to become the regional hegemon. 

The relationship between Identity and stability occupies the core of consensus democracy philosophy, as this governance model is designed to ultimately realise stability by addressing societal fragmentation in divided societies. In Iraq, this relationship shapes a complicated trajectory, mainly because the society moved fast from identity politics (transition) to issues politics (post-transition), which turned the consensus democracy itself that succeeded in realising stability in the transition by functioning well in addressing identity-related crises paradoxically into a driver for instability in the post-transition, for its dysfunctionality beyond the identity sphere. This article argues that this dysfunctionality is primarily linked to flaws of Arend Lijphart’s theory of consensus democracy more than problems stemming from the Iraqi context. It reviews and analyses the existing literature on the nexus of identity and stability under consensus democracy, taking Iraq as a case study. As a review article, this research uses the qualitative method; its data are collected from secondary sources. It found that the philosophy of consensus democracy is designed to primarily meet transition demands, which makes rapid societal transformation beyond transition raise bottom-up pressures expressed in new demands that this democracy cannot accommodate, creating a growing gap between the post-transitional social dynamics and the transitional politics, which generates chronic instability. Further research is needed on stabilisation mechanisms in post-transition, as most studies of consensus democracy focus on stability in transition.