The Endorsement of Inclusive Citizenship and Its Social Implications in Oman: An Early Gain Missing from Public Discourse - Mohammed Al-Fazari
This brief article sheds light on a positive aspect of the Omani experience—one that, in my view, stands out as one of the most significant gains achieved in the early stages of the political system’s formation. It played a central role in shaping the features of Omani society as we know it today: its tolerance, diversity, and social cohesion, as well as its characteristic warmth and generosity toward others. Nevertheless, this dimension has remained largely absent from public discussion and has not received due attention in official media discourse or broader societal conversations, despite its profound impact on the formation of Oman’s social fabric.
This article draws on the multidimensional theory of citizenship as developed by Thomas Marshall and Engin Isin, and builds on Nancy Fraser’s analysis of justice, particularly her concept of recognition justice, to explore the symbolic dimension of identity within legal citizenship. It does so through comparative references to contemporary Gulf experiences.
The focus here is on the comprehensive recognition of equal citizenship for all social groups residing in Oman at the time of the modern state’s founding, with the rise to power of Sultan Qaboos, regardless of their ethnic origins, sectarian affiliations, linguistic diversity, or class positions. This recognition contributed to the absence of the phenomenon of “statelessness,” or the “bidoon,” which today constitutes one of the most complex issues in several other Gulf states, most notably Kuwait. Moreover, Oman did not adopt a tiered system of citizenship, as practiced in other Gulf countries such as the United Arab Emirates.
According to Marshall’s conception, legal citizenship—meaning an individual’s formal affiliation with the state and the basic rights that come with it—forms the foundation upon which social and political belonging is later built. From this perspective, what took place in Oman was not merely an administrative measure; it was a foundational act that contributed to the creation of a cohesive social structure.
The absence of a “stateless” category in Oman not only established legal equality among citizens but also spared the state and society from profound social challenges—namely, the reproduction of legal and social disparities and the resulting sense of grievance and marginalization.
What is striking is that what is now taken for granted was not necessarily so at the time the decision was made. A comparison with other Gulf experiences reveals that the move was far from conventional; it was, in fact, exceptional within its context and produced long-term social and political outcomes, chief among them the absence of legally marginalized groups and the reinforcement of values such as coexistence and civil peace.
It is essential to clarify that the focus here is on citizenship as a legal status—that is, formal affiliation with the state through the possession of nationality, and the fundamental legal rights associated with it. This understanding does not encompass citizenship as a political practice or as a form of active partnership in decision-making or participation in a free civil society.
In this sense, the approach aligns with the classical conception presented by Thomas Marshall in his book Citizenship and Social Class, where he focuses on the gradual granting of civil, political, and social rights within the framework of the modern state. However, these dimensions—especially citizenship as active participation through the types of rights Marshall outlines—remain largely absent in the Omani context, if not entirely absent. Where they do exist, they are mainly symbolic and limited in impact.
More recent critical perspectives, such as the “Acts of Citizenship” theory developed by Engin Isin, go beyond this legal understanding of citizenship. Instead, they focus on the political acts carried out by individuals as political agents who demand their rights and redefine the very boundaries of citizenship, including those who are marginalized or not officially recognized. However, this dimension is not the subject of this article, which focuses exclusively on the legal dimension of citizenship and its relationship to Oman’s social structure.
The aim here is to highlight a specific and highly significant point—one that is often treated as a given, though it is far from self-evident when viewed within the broader Gulf context. What would Oman and its social fabric look like had this not been the case? How much social fragility might have emerged? What kinds of divisions could have been reproduced within the social structure if certain groups had been subjected to an exceptional legal status?
The absence of legal equity—in other words, the presence of a stateless group—could have obstructed full social integration and undermined the concept of equal citizenship. Citizenship is not limited to legal rights; it also encompasses the social and cultural dimensions that foster a shared sense of belonging and collective national identity. Had a stateless group existed in Oman, it could have led to the reproduction of symbolic violence and negative social capital, entrenching class divisions and marginalized identities within the social fabric. This, in turn, would have paved the way for widespread racism and structural discrimination, ultimately threatening long-term social cohesion.
This experience falls under what Nancy Fraser terms recognition justice—the legal and symbolic acknowledgment of identity and existence, which helps prevent the reproduction of symbolic and social marginalization. Without such comprehensive recognition of citizenship, traditional structures would have had the capacity to reproduce inequality and discrimination. Oman, too, might have witnessed forms of symbolic violence and structural racism that are evident in other Gulf societies.
This is not to suggest that the situation in Oman is ideal. There are significant shortcomings—for instance, the lack of official celebration of cultural and linguistic diversity through cultural or educational initiatives, and the tendency to promote a uniform image of the Omani individual. This is particularly evident in the absence of symbolic pluralism in media and school curricula, where a single dominant cultural model is reproduced at the expense of less-represented identities.
The absence of a “stateless” category in Oman not only established legal equality among citizens but also spared the state and society from profound social challenges—namely, the reproduction of legal and social disparities and the resulting sense of grievance and marginalization, and the spread of racism, discrimination, and hatred, as observed in other societies facing this persistent dilemma.
In this sense, the granting of equal Omani citizenship to all social groups at the dawn of the modern state played a crucial role in preserving and reinforcing the social fabric, establishing at least a legal foundation for a shared sense of national belonging.
However, even this legal dimension is not without its shortcomings—this is not the context for an in-depth discussion. Yet, some fundamental structural gaps within the concept of legal citizenship in Oman cannot be ignored.
Legal citizenship, no matter how inclusive, remains incomplete if it is not accompanied by the foundations of participation and the full spectrum of civil, political, and social rights.
Despite the early comprehensive recognition of citizenship, forms of legal discrimination persist that undermine the principle of full equality among citizens. Chief among these is gender-based discrimination, as Omani women do not enjoy the same rights as men to pass on their nationality to a non-Omani spouse or to their children, except under restrictive and complex conditions. This right is granted automatically to their male counterparts, creating a clear legal disparity within the very framework of citizenship.
Moreover, issues arise from the Omani nationality law itself, most notably in its latest version issued in 2025, which reflects an increasingly restrictive trend. The law includes provisions allowing for the revocation of citizenship from any individual convicted of verbally or physically insulting the state or the person of the Sultan, even if they hold the nationality by birth. These are legally vague terms that leave room for interpretation and potential misuse, enabling the restriction of freedom of expression and the punishment of political dissent under the guise of safeguarding state dignity, contradicting the core guarantees of sound legal citizenship.
While the Omani experience has not been theoretically framed in official discourse, it has nonetheless provided an implicit model of inclusive citizenship—one that has moved beyond traditional structures in favor of a more cohesive political and social formation, free from the deep-seated legal inequalities that plague other Gulf societies. Therefore, it is essential to recognize this historical achievement and work to protect it, not by viewing it as a past accomplishment, but by developing it further to include full gender equality and to ensure that citizenship is not used as a political instrument. The absence of this discussion from media and educational curricula deprives younger generations of a vital awareness of one of the core foundations of their national cohesion.
It is also crucial that the concept of citizenship expands to include citizenship as practice—that is, as genuine participation in decision-making and active involvement in public life. As Marshall puts it, legal citizenship, no matter how inclusive, remains incomplete if it is not accompanied by the foundations of participation and the full spectrum of civil, political, and social rights.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق