A state’s true strength lies not merely in its geographical borders, but in its national consensus. Many years ago, Abraham Lincoln aptly said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Around the world, conflicts and ideological differences among political parties are common. That is natural. However, every country has certain fundamental issues where unity prevails among all. On major national matters, political parties—regardless of their affiliations—usually reach a consensus.
But there are some countries where, alongside political violence, there is a lack of unity even on national questions. Such disunity is extremely dangerous for any country.
When there is no unity on core national issues, that nation can never achieve stability or peace. That is why it is often said that a state truly begins to fall apart when internal discord and hatred grow uncontrollably.
In such a scenario, the state doesn’t just face political division—it becomes existentially fragile.
Many developing countries around the world have faced such crises. Somalia, a country in the Horn of Africa, can be cited as an example. Somalia has long been plagued by internal conflict.
After the fall of its central government in 1991, the country essentially fragmented—various regional factions, clans, and warlords took control over their own territories. Despite peacekeeping missions, numerous conferences, and diplomatic efforts, Somalia’s mainstream political forces have yet to reach a consensus on the idea of a unified nation-state.
They have failed to form unity because they prioritize their own ideologies over the greater national interest. As a result, ordinary citizens are deprived of even basic rights such as security, education, or healthcare.
Another example of political disunity can be seen in Myanmar, a landlocked state in Asia. Ongoing conflict between military and democratic forces has led the country into civil war and international isolation.
Even Europe is not entirely free of such examples. Bosnia and Herzegovina—formed after the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s—continues to exist under a fragmented state structure.
The country is home to three main ethnic groups: Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats, who are so deeply divided by distrust and political rivalry that even the national election is governed by three separate presidencies. The war has stopped, but the true essence of statehood has not been realized there.
Thus, when ethnic division is nurtured as political division, a state can never function effectively. A common thread runs through all these examples: when political parties fail to agree on the nation’s fundamental interests, the state becomes leaderless, directionless, and alienated from its people.
In such cases, the purpose of politics shifts from building the state to destroying the opposition. These examples from various countries illustrate that prolonged disunity can even lead to the collapse of a state.
This is deeply alarming. Because a state is not merely a geographical entity—it is a consciousness, built upon national consensus. If that consciousness is wounded daily by political vengeance, then stability can never be achieved.
On the other hand, a country where the idea of the 'state' is respected above party interests can earn global dignity. That’s why Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”