Both Yemen and Sudan are facing the challenge of preserving their threatened unity. The nature of the threats may be different between one country and another, and its direct motives may be different as well, but they are ultimately based on a single view of the state in both countries, and of the nature of rule there, even though the matter is not restricted to these two countries alone in the Arab region, but rather shared by all Arab countries in one way or another. And if such danger is looming in Yemen and Sudan, this is due to the fact that the forces opposed to the ruling regime, due to various circumstances, enjoy the ability to take action, as well as to the fact that the authorities display a certain amount of weakness. This brings about an imbalance in the relationship between the two and a rejection of the status quo, making the conditions of coexistence more fragile, and the drive to bring about change and make use of violence more attractive. This is what the two countries are witnessing, at varying degrees, taking shape between a fragile truce and armed clashes and confrontations that include raising doubts over the legitimacy of the authorities and their political representation. They also include efforts towards dialogue and agreements that get discarded almost as soon as they are ratified. The Sudanese use the term “attractive unity” to lure the Southerners into voting to remain within a unified Sudan in the independence referendum that will be held in two years, according to the Naivasha Agreement that ended the war between the two sides. Yet the transitional period specified in the agreement – ratified in 2005 – has witnessed bilateral disagreements, in addition to the Darfur war breaking out, that have weakened the force of attraction towards unity. Lately, statements have been heard, from Juba and Khartoum, which reflect in advance heading towards separation. And if the result of the referendum is binding to both sides, the ruling regime in the North and its Southern partner (the Popular Front) have been dealing with this issue as if it was a military occurrence, with which a return to confrontation would not be unlikely. In Yemen, the dominant discourse is that of a militarily conclusion to the confrontation with the Al-Houthi rebels in the North of the country, after the latter have taken hold of areas in which they refuse the presence of the authorities. This is after confrontations and clashes in the South in which raising doubts over the ruling regime and calling for secession have been dominant, as previous agreements, arrangements and measures have failed to make Yemen's unity “attractive”. In both cases, that of Sudan and of Yemen, the elements of “attractive unity” have not been made available due to the absence of the notion of the state, and the prevalence of the notion of ruling party, with what this involves in terms of separation between citizens of the one country, in terms of rights and duties, as well as of participation in power and in the state on the basis of alternation. This is also due to the absence of statesmen, not just in the ruling regime, but also in the opposition. Indeed, armed groups and political parties of regional and tribal allegiance deal with the government and the ruling regime as a party from a different region and tribe, not brought together by citizenship and shared fate. Hence every weakening of the state is in the interest of these groups that are fighting against the ruling regime and among themselves for the monopoly of absolute right and power. And thus local opposition becomes an organic one which all technical and localized arrangements fail to resolve. This is also what Lebanon is witnessing, where parties are, despite current appearances of appeasement, unable to abandon their own authorities of reference in favor of the uniting reference of the state. Also in Iraq, despite the fact that the constitution stipulates federalism, the issue of political unity is put into question at every political occurrence. In all of these cases, the root of the problem is one, and that is the absence of attraction towards the one state and the prevalence of elements of mutual repulsion, whether in the practices of rule or in the aspirations of political factions.
