MADRID – The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) stands as a pivotal institution representing the collective voice of the Muslim world, encompassing 57 member states and over 1.9 billion people. Yet, despite its ambitious mandate to promote Islamic solidarity, safeguard interests of Muslim communities, and intervene in crises affecting the Muslim ummah, the OIC has long been caught in a cycle of rhetorical formalism and procedural inertia.

Its repeated recourse to declarations, communiqués, and calls for unity—while symbolically potent—reveals a profound incapacity to transform ethical affirmations into concrete political agency. 

The OIC’s chronic failures are symptomatic of a sovereign deficit rooted in its unwillingness or inability to enact the constitutive gestures of collective political subjectivity. Until the OIC moves beyond ritualized speech acts and embraces the constituent logic of politics—namely, the explicit naming of adversaries and the implementation of actionable interventions—its claims to genuine political agency will remain suspended.

The recent summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, convened swiftly in Doha following the Israeli attack on Qatar, provides a poignant frame to question the collective agency of the Muslim world’s foremost intergovernmental organization. This extraordinary session symbolized both a moment of ethical affirmation and of procedural stasis, illuminating a broader crisis in the OIC’s capacity to enact sovereignty. Palestine, as the emblematic case of contested sovereignty and enduring colonial violence, underscores the fundamental paradox faced by the OIC: the divergence between rhetorical declarations and tangible political intervention.

The attack on Qatar, targeting Hamas officials engaged in ceasefire negotiations, was unanimously condemned by the OIC member states as a violation of international law and a threat to regional stability. The final communiqué articulated strong solidarity with Qatar and reaffirmed support for Palestinian rights, calling for sanctions and legal proceedings against Israel. Yet, this summit, like many before it, largely entailed a series of declarative statements and calls for unity— powerful in rhetoric but markedly constrained in operative political capacity.

The limit of ritualized sovereignty

At the core of this argument is a categorical and conceptual error that has long constrained the OIC’s political efficacy: the mistaken belief that sovereignty can be affirmed without being enacted. From a politico-theological perspective, sovereignty is not a mere principle or symbolic status; it exists only insofar as it is exercised. To speak of sovereignty without the capacity to assert, enforce, and defend collective interests is to engage in an empty performative, a ritualized speech act that cannot produce the effects it names.

The OIC’s extensive use of declarations and communiqués mirrors this dynamic. Each session and summit are an opportunity for member states to reiterate ethical commitments to Muslim solidarity and justice, to condemn injustices inflicted upon Muslim populations, notably Palestinians, Rohingya, Kashmiris, and others, and to voice calls for peace and humanitarian relief. Yet these well-intentioned pronouncements rarely translate into decisive political action that challenges hegemonic powers, mobilizes resources effectively, or asserts collective sovereignty. Instead, they remain trapped in a procedural loop where words proliferate but agency is suspended.

The sovereign deficit of collective political subjectivity

This predicament reflects a deeper sovereign deficit: a reluctance—or structural inability—to form and exercise genuine collective political subjectivity. The OIC is a coalition of deeply heterogeneous states with varying geopolitical interests, economic capacities, and alliances. This plurality produces chronic fragmentation, hindering cohesive decision-making and empowering powerful member states to dilute collective will. Consequently, the OIC finds itself unable to perform the constitutive political acts required for sovereignty: defining a common enemy, enacting sanctions, launching multilateral interventions, or creating binding obligations.

Political subjectivity, in this context, refers to the formation of a collective actor capable of political will and action. The OIC’s performative acts of solidarity are undermined by the absence of a unified and sovereign “we” that can act decisively against threats to its members or shared values. Its official discourse frequently demands “unity,” but this unity is rarely enacted beyond symbolic consensus, remaining in the realm of mere words rather than material power or intervention.

Learning from Iran: Enacting sovereignty through constitutive acts

One of the clearest contrasts to the OIC’s inertial rhetoric is Iran’s response to the Israeli aggression and regional geopolitics. Iran, despite considerable international isolation and sanctions, has demonstrated a form of political agency that transcends declarative language. Its responses—including support for Resistance movements, open condemnation of aggressors, and concrete political and military actions—exemplify the enactment of sovereignty as constitutive political action.

From Iran’s politico-theological perspective, sovereignty is inseparable from action; it is rooted in an existential commitment to resist oppression and to perform justice beyond mere words. This sovereign posture involves both naming adversaries explicitly and mobilizing means to contest them, rejecting the passivity embedded in ritualized political language. For Iran, the legitimacy of political subjectivity depends on this concrete enactment of sovereignty rather than abstract affirmation.

The OIC, therefore, must learn from such constitutive political agency. To claim political relevance in the 21st century, the OIC cannot afford the luxury of symbolic reiterations detached from operational power and coherent political strategy. Its credibility—and indeed the survival of its normative mission—hinges on overcoming its procedural inertia and formulating a politics of sovereignty that is performative, confrontational, and decisive.

The OIC’s rhetorical devices—declarations, joint communiqués, and calls for unity—often serve as empty gestures that paper over deep political divisions. While they perform a ritual of solidarity on behalf of Muslim unity, they fail to impact realpolitik or address the urgent crises with the urgency required. This contributes to a perception of the OIC as a body of symbolic grandeur but practical impotence.

Moreover, this rhetorical reliance leads to a paradox where ethical affirmation is separated from political agency. The OIC declares support for justice and condemns aggression, yet hesitates or refrains from identifying clear adversaries or engaging in coercive political measures. This hesitation signals a systemic flaw: an organization that limits itself to declarative expressions is destined to remain a spectator rather than a player in international conflict and cooperation.

1. Naming adversaries: The OIC must move beyond generalized condemnations to explicitly identify actors whose policies violate the collective ethical order. This includes naming states or entities responsible for egregious human rights abuses, occupation, or aggression without evasion or ambiguity.

2. Implementing actionable interventions: Words must be backed by coordinated political, economic, or diplomatic measures. This could encompass sanctions, mediation initiatives with enforceable mechanisms, humanitarian aid deployment with oversight, or coordinated defense policies respecting international law.

3. Constituting collective political will: The OIC needs to overcome internal divisions through institutional reforms that balance sovereignties but enable binding decisions. Strengthening mechanisms for political coherence, accountability, and solidarity will transform the organization from a declarative forum into a true political actor.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s persistent reliance on ritualized speech exposes the limits of an institution trapped in a sovereign deficit. By failing to enact the constitutive actions of political sovereignty, the OIC remains suspended between ethical affirmation and practical impotence. As the geopolitical landscape grows ever more complex, the OIC’s future as a credible collective political actor depends on its willingness to embrace the difficult but necessary steps of naming adversaries and enacting interventions.

The Iranian example highlights the potential of politico-theological sovereignty grounded in committed political agency, offering a model for how the OIC might transcend its current paralysis. Only by bridging the gap between rhetoric and action can the OIC reclaim its role as a genuine sovereign body capable of shaping political outcomes for the Muslim world and beyond.