Conflict between Tribe and State: When Belonging Prevails over Citizenship

Mohamed Abderrahmane Ould Abdalla
Journalist and Writer – Nouakchott, Mauritania

Since the establishment of the Mauritanian state in the early 1960s, the conflict between tribal logic and the logic of the state has never disappeared. While the dream was to build a modern state based on law and institutions, reality has remained governed by the rules of allegiance and tribal belonging—so much so that the state itself has become a disguised extension of tribal power.
From Chaos to Order
Historically, Mauritanian society was built on the basis of siba, meaning the absence of central authority, where tribes managed their affairs through their own systems of protection, alliances, and customs. With the birth of the Republic in 1960, tribal power should have receded in favor of the national state. But the opposite happened: the elites who came to power carried the spirit of the tribe into the organs of the state, turning ministries and administrations into arenas for sharing tribal influence rather than independent

national institutions.
The Tribe… the Real Power
In Mauritanian politics,

the tribe remains the most influential actor in decision-making. During elections, popularity is not measured by programs but by the number of tents pitched and loyalties mobilized. In appointments, tribal balance often outweighs competence. Even legal and administrative matters are frequently settled through the mediation of tribal chiefs rather than through judicial institutions.
The tribe has thus become a kind of “parallel party” that imposes its conditions on the state and pulls the strings of social and political relations behind the scenes. Belonging to a powerful tribe offers greater access to jobs, contracts, and representation, while members of smaller tribes or marginalized groups remain excluded from circles of influence.
The State under the Cloak of the Tribe
No Mauritanian regime has escaped the dominance of the tribal mindset. President Mokhtar Ould Daddah initially attempted to build a unifying national state, but he ultimately yielded to tribal balances. The military regimes that followed used the tribe as an instrument of control and loyalty, sowing division rather than unity and entrenching the logic of “who is with us and who is against us” on identity-based rather than political grounds.
In this way, the modern state has become a formal façade of an ancient social power, and the tribe has turned into a true “deep state” that cannot be bypassed without paying a political price.
The Consequences of the Conflict
The dominance of tribal allegiance over national belonging has produced serious negative effects:
Undermining the principle of equal opportunity in public administration and civil service.
Paralyzing justice, replaced by mediation and custom.
Weakening civic consciousness in favor of narrow identity.
Fueling regional and social divisions that erode national cohesion.
This reality has made the very concept of the “state” fragile in the minds of many citizens, as the tribe remains the first refuge in times of need, long before the law or public institutions.
Signs of a New Awareness
Despite all this, signs of change are emerging among the younger generation, especially in cities and universities. This generation believes that loyalty to the nation is greater than loyalty to the tribe, and that justice should be based on competence and equality, not lineage. Social media has also helped to break the tribal aura and expose the corruption of a system of sharing that turns the state into a prize divided among groups.
The Path toward a State of Citizenship
Building a true national state in Mauritania requires deep reforms—from education to administration—and demands genuine political will. Among the most important steps:
Anchoring the culture of citizenship in education and the media.
Making competence the sole criterion for recruitment and promotion.
Separating tribal influence from state institutions.
Supporting civil society and an independent judiciary as guarantors of rights, far from customary mediation.

●Conclusion
The tribe is not the enemy of the state, but it becomes an obstacle when it goes beyond its social role and turns into a parallel power. The state, in turn, will only be strong if it can integrate tribal diversity without submitting to it. Between the logic of “I belong to a tribe” and that of “I belong to a nation,” the future of Mauritania is being decided: will it remain a state of affiliations, or become a state of citizenship and justice?