Abstract:

This paper differs from previous studies in arguing that sectarianismhas overwhelmingly been created consensually by/or as a result ofthe elites’ behavioral patterns. Religious or communal pluralism doesnot categorically lead to political sectarianism; The development ofpluralism into political sectarianism can thus be adduced as dependentupon other factors—first and foremost the behavioural patterns of theelite. While the imperial legacy, theological controversies, and socioeconomicgaps feed political sectarianism, in and of themselves theyare insufficient to cause it. A survey of the history of Egypt and theother countries in the Fertile Crescent reveals that the developmentof political sectarianism or sectarian violence has been organicallylinked to elites’ political behaviors and interests. sectarianism takesthe form of the instrumental exploitation of a religious or communalidentity or framework in order to enable political organization, thegaining of political legitimacy, the promotion of political change,or the preservation of the control held by interest groups. While inthe eyes of many critics, sectarianism forms a striking example of theelites’ intrinsic weakness, sectarianism is first and foremost a productof the elites’ quest for power.