Cohesion and Continuity: The Foundation of the Saudi State

The Saudi Founding Day is commonly treated as a commemorative moment marking the birth of a political entity in 1727. Yet, it serves a larger function. It tells the Saudi story of emergence and challenges the dominant interpretive framework through which Saudi Arabia is often understood. Much of the narratives explain Saudi stability through episodic lenses that privilege rupture, material wealth, or external alliances. Oil discovery, Cold War alignments, and religious activism are also frequently presented as distinct turning points that redefine the Saudi state. From within the Saudi historical experience, however, these episodes appear less as defining than as phases of a continuous political project. That project has centered on the construction and preservation of cohesion and stability across a historically fragmented peninsula.

The Arabian Peninsula prior to the Saudi state illustrates the structural conditions that made cohesion a strategic imperative. Following the relocation of the Rashidun Caliphate away from the peninsula in 656 CE, Najd and its surrounding regions consisted of autonomous localities governed by tribal leaders, whose rivalries often produced prolonged conflict. Saudi historian Uthman Ibn Bishar explained such dynamics in his two-volume book, The Address of Glory in the History of Najd. The absence of a centralized authority capable of enforcing justice, providing public goods, and ensuring collective security prevented the emergence of a unified sociopolitical identity. Fragmentation, therefore, represented not merely a descriptive feature of the peninsula but a structural obstacle to state formation. For this reason, the Saudi project can be understood as an attempt to resolve this condition through the deliberate institutionalization of cohesion.

The alliance forged in Diriyah in 1744 between Mohammed bin Saud and Mohammed Ibn Abdulwahhab provided the mechanism through which that objective could be pursued. The pact combined political authority with religious reform, producing a normative framework capable of integrating tribal communities into a shared order. Scholars of Saudi history have interpreted this agreement as a reformation of both religion and politics aimed at restoring unity and stability after prolonged fragmentation. By grounding authority in justice, shared belief, and tribal accommodation, the Diriyah alliance transformed cohesion into an operational principle of governance. Rather than dissolving tribal identities, it incorporated them into a broader political structure that promised security, prosperity, and equality.

An extract in Arabic from the chronicles of Ibn Bishr, describing the meeting between Ibn Saud and Ibn Abdul Wahhab in 1744

The first Saudi state demonstrated the strategic implications of this arrangement. Its expansion across much of the peninsula reflected not only initial military success but the capacity to reconcile diverse communities under a unified authority. Crucially, the cohesion generated during this period proved resilient even after the collapse of the First and Second Saudi states in 1818 and 1891, respectively. Even during the absence of the political entity, tribal loyalty to the Al Saud family and adherence to the religious reform movement persisted. The survival of allegiance despite institutional collapse underscores a central analytical insight: Cohesion, or its urgency, preceded the institutionalization of the state and outlasted political defeat. The restoration of the Saudi state under King Abdulaziz can therefore be interpreted as the reactivation of a continuity rather than the creation of a new political order. 

Abdulaziz’s campaign to reestablish Saudi rule after the recapture of Riyadh in 1901 reflected a conscious effort to restore the Saudi political project and operationalize the lesson learned from previous Saudi states. His approach prioritized reconciliation and integration over rapid expansion. Pardons extended to former rivals, assurances provided to tribal leaders, and the gradual development of institutions all served to reinforce legitimacy and prevent discordance. Following the King’s capture of Al Qassim, Abdulaziz’s refusal to surrender Saudi territory to Ottoman authorities despite financial inducements further illustrated a commitment to sovereignty grounded in loyalty to land and community. In the words of the King: “I did not become a king based on the will of a foreigner, but rather it was God’s will and then that of the Arabs who chose me to enforce the rule of law and Qur’anic principles .. and if they change their minds, I will leave and return to what I was: a fighter.” Moreover, the formation of the Ikhwan as a mobilizing force also reflected an attempt to reinforce unity under a shared ideology. In this sense, the third Saudi state emerged not simply as a territorial entity but as the institutional reconsolidation of cohesion. 

The discovery of oil in 1938 transformed Saudi Arabia’s economic capabilities but did not alter the underlying logic of state formation. Abdulaziz’s initial focus on securing water resources and establishing governing institutions prior to oil discovery highlights that the Saudi state was already functioning as a cohesive polity. Oil revenues enabled infrastructural development, military modernization, and institutional expansion, yet these developments were built upon an existing framework of legitimacy and stability. The Saudi experience therefore challenges resource determinist interpretations by demonstrating that cohesion enabled the effective utilization of oil rather than emerging from it.

This continuity of cohesion has shaped Saudi responses to domestic challenges across subsequent decades. The Ikhwan revolt revealed the tension between ideological mobilization and state authority, prompting decisive intervention to preserve unity. Later societal transformations, including periods of religious activism and reform, similarly reflected efforts to balance identity, modernization, and stability. The management of these tensions underscores a broader strategic pattern in which cohesion functions as both constraint and guide for policy decisions.  

For its part, Saudi foreign policy is often interpreted through alliance dependence or balancing behavior. Yet the continuity of cohesion provides a deeper explanation for Saudi alignment. A state confident in its internal legitimacy can pursue diversified relations with global powers while safeguarding sovereignty. Early Saudi engagement with Britain was based on cooperation but not when Saudi sovereignty was violated, as demonstrated by direct disputes with Britian over the Buraimi oasis and indirect ones such as with British protectorates Kuwait and Bahrain over Saudi economic autonomy. Advocacy for Arab and Islamic causes similarly reflected Saudi leaders’ deep sense of responsibilities towards Islamic causes. Despite its long-standing relations with the U.S., Saudi Arabia directly clashed with U.S. Presidents Harry Truman and Richard Nixon over Palestine. By extension, the later use of oil as a political instrument emerged from a position of cohesive state capacity that also enabled Saudi Arabia to act with autonomy in global markets.

Contemporary reform initiatives reinforce this historical continuity. Vision 2030, frequently analyzed in economic terms, represents a broader effort to adapt the Saudi social and institutional framework to demographic, economic, and technological changes without undermining Saudi sociopolitical core. The integration of a youthful population into a diversified economy, recalibration of institutional roles, and expansion of governance capacity all reflect an ongoing state development process rooted in cohesion. Reform thus appears less as rupture than as adaptation within a long-standing political logic.

Saudi Founding Day therefore serves as an analytical corrective to episodic interpretations of Saudi history. The kingdom’s trajectory cannot be fully understood through singular turning points such as oil discovery or geopolitical alignment. Instead, it reflects a continuous process of state building and development centered on the pursuit of cohesion as the core national imperative. The three Saudi states represent phases of this project rather than discrete experiments. In a regional environment often characterized by state fragility, Saudi Arabia’s experience underscores the strategic value of cohesion as the foundation of sovereignty, institutional resilience, and adaptive reform.

This is not to deny the importance of material resources and regional, global, and ideological dynamics in influencing Saudi behavior. Rather, it situates them within a broader historical continuity that has defined the Saudi political experience for nearly three centuries. The kingdom’s rise to regional and global prominence may be associated with oil and diplomacy, but its durability rests on a quieter achievement: Saudi Arabia’s enduring strength lies in its ability to forge unity amid fragmentation and to sustain that unity as the cornerstone of its strategic posture.

---

About the Author:

Abedallah Alhenaki is a doctoral candidate at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. His research focuses on Saudi foreign policy, national security, and alliances.

---

** The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Alyamamah International for Research and Development or any of its affiliated institutions.