On the 35th anniversary of the re-establishment of Yemeni unity, this major national milestone returns amid a fractured political and social landscape, an absent state, and contested authority among forces dividing the country’s geography — with projects that contradict the essence and meaning of unity, according to an analysis published by Yemen Monitor.
Although May 22, 1990, marked a pivotal moment in Yemen’s modern history, ending decades of division and conflict, today’s reality signals a gradual unraveling of that achievement. This is evident in the erosion of sovereign decision-making, the disintegration of state institutions, and the rise of armed entities that view geography as spoils and unity as an obstacle to their political ambitions.
The unity project now faces its most severe test since its inception — not only due to war and division, but also because of the absence of leadership capable of safeguarding this achievement. Authority has become a fragile entity fragmented among conflicting powers, each pursuing its own interests or those of its regional backers.
Despite the deep national symbolism carried by this occasion, it arrives this year amid a crisis-ridden reality. Humanitarian and living conditions continue to deteriorate; Yemenis’ daily lives are overwhelmed by war, geographic fragmentation, collapsed services, currency devaluation, salary suspensions, and worsening crises in essential sectors such as electricity and healthcare.
Nevertheless, many believe that the foundational pillars of the national unity project remain resilient in the face of these challenges, having become deeply rooted in public consciousness as a historic achievement that cannot easily be abandoned.
Political writer and analyst Daifallah Shamsan believes that the war in Yemen has not produced a state or even a national project. Instead, it has deepened tendencies toward political and military control over geography and entrenched an abnormal reality where armed factions—with external support—have divided power and influence at the expense of the central state and its national project.
Speaking to “Yemen Monitor,” Shamsan explains that the weakness of central decision-making and the erosion of state institutions have paved the way for the rampant growth of separatist tendencies, especially when these tendencies find regional incubators that fund them and grant them parallel legitimacy. He adds that this reality has produced a distorted political landscape, where political and military components have multiplied, and armed groups have monopolized positions of influence without being under the umbrella of the state.
He pointed out that the most dangerous aspect is that these armed components, which are supposedly outside state institutions, have become part of the very power hierarchy. This is the case with the Southern Transitional Council (STC), led by Aidarous Al-Zubaidi—who is simultaneously a member of the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC). This reflects a dangerous duality between allegiance to unity and the practice of separatism.
Shamsan adds that the very composition of the PLC represents an extension of this fragmentation. He describes it as consisting of “eight conflicting heads, reconciled with corruption, subservience, and quota allocation,” lacking the ability or will to deter militias. This has allowed the STC to proceed with its secessionist steps without any real deterrent from the government, of which it is supposedly a part.
Shamsan asserts that the 35th anniversary of Yemeni unity comes at a time when the country is experiencing a complete absence of state institutions, counterbalanced by an overwhelming presence of militias in the north and south. This is compounded by a frightening decline in development indicators and widespread financial and administrative corruption. He cites the continued presence of senior officials outside the country, receiving dollar-denominated salaries and benefits, which makes returning home an unappealing option.
Historian and political analyst Mokhtar Hashem believes that the internal conflict among members of the PLC not only reflects a structural dysfunction within the authority, but also poses a direct threat to the prospect of Yemen remaining united. This threat emerges through the weakening of decision-making power and the entrenchment of regional and geographic divisions among armed factions—each aligned with external loyalties or pursuing its own agenda.
In his analysis of the current landscape, Hashem asserts that “the PLC, in its current form, is not only incapable of defending unity, but is—knowingly or unknowingly—becoming a platform for managing division and enabling separatist forces to expand under the umbrella of a paralyzed legitimacy.” He adds, “The conflict among council members is not about state-building, but about influence, representation, and personal gain, which negatively affects the image of a unified Yemeni state both domestically and internationally.”
Hashem points out that the divisions within the council directly contribute to the weakening of state institutions and empower separatist components—chief among them the STC—by allowing them to advance their project in the absence of deterrence and amid the contradictory rhetoric within the legitimate government itself.
Hashem concludes with a warning: the continuation of this fragile model of leadership “will reduce the state to a mere cover for de facto authorities dividing the country’s geography, and will turn unity into nothing more than a memory for some to celebrate—while in practice, it is being dismantled clause by clause, from within the authority itself.”
Despite the escalating conflict in Yemen and the proliferation of military and political centers of influence, the project of a united state still represents the shared destiny of Yemenis, both in the north and the south. It is considered the only guarantee for stability and the rebuilding of the state.
A number of political activists, speaking to “Yemen Monitor,” emphasize that the fate of the Yemeni people remains one, and that the country’s unity remains the only option everyone agrees upon, despite the complexities of the situation. They stated that the militias controlling different geographies do not represent a national project but rather seek to tear the country apart. However, in their opinion, they will not succeed, “as it is a matter of time, and they will all disappear,” as they put it.
Historian Mohammed Abdulaziz Jaber told “Yemen Monitor” that “all our issues as Yemenis are intertwined and interconnected. Neither the STC is capable of secession, nor can the Houthis impose their state.” He adds, “After years of conflict, nothing has been achieved but failure, division, and corruption. The only solution is to return to the project of a united state, as an inclusive framework that rebuilds Yemen under independent national leadership.”
In light of this vision, the discussion is renewed that Yemen remaining united is not just a political choice, but a national necessity imposed by geography, society, and history. Overcoming the current ordeal requires genuine leadership that places the nation above sectarian and regional considerations, and redefines the national project on foundations of justice and partnership.