Today, there is a need to reframe the Yemeni agreement and rebuild the relationship on democratic and equitable foundations that meet the aspirations of people in both the South and the North. In its current administrative and political form, unity has failed to deliver what was hoped of it; instead, it has deepened conflict and widened the trust deficit. What is needed now is not merely formal political unity, but a human unity grounded in dignity, justice, and mutual respect.
This phase also calls for thinking about a hybrid governance system that responds to the historical, political, and geographical differences between the South and the North, while respecting the distinctiveness of each within an inclusive framework.
First, the word Yemen must be restored as a shared cultural and human identity, after its meaning has been damaged by political practices that have undermined it. Historically, Yemen has symbolized prosperity, diversity, and civilization. It also carries religious significance, having been mentioned—along with its people—in more than one Prophetic tradition. The name itself holds geographic and civilizational connotations referring to a broader region, similar to terms such as the Levant or the Gulf. In this sense, Yemen can express a civilizational and human space that transcends the boundaries of a single political state.
Protecting a shared Yemeni identity does not contradict pride in other identities—Southern, Hadrami, or otherwise. On the contrary, it enhances them and provides a broader framework of belonging. Geographic or cultural affiliation should not be understood as betrayal of Yemeni identity, but as part of its historical richness and diversity.
Second, it is time to “reset the settings of unity.” Unity is not an end in itself; it is a means to achieve justice, stability, and development. When it fails to achieve these aims, it becomes legitimate to consider new formulas.
In this context, it is important to clarify that the term secession does not legally and precisely apply to Southerners calling for the restoration of their state. In international law, secession generally describes a region’s attempt to declare independence from an existing state when it has not previously possessed sovereign statehood. The South, however, was an independent and internationally recognized state prior to 1990, represented by the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, a member of the United Nations and the Arab League, with established institutions and recognized borders.
Yemeni unity in 1990 was, in essence, a political agreement between two independent states—not the accession of a region to a central state. After the political partnership collapsed following the 1994 war, a broad segment of Southerners began to view the issue as one of self-determination or state restoration rather than “secession” in its traditional legal meaning. Nevertheless, the term secession has been widely used in political and media discourse as a tool of demonization rather than as a precise legal description—further deepening division instead of opening space for dialogue.
Historically, the South was among the strongest believers in the unity project; achieving it was a goal generations were raised upon. Yet today’s realities require a new discussion about the form of the relationship with the North under its current configuration.
What people want today—in both South and North—is the provision of basic rights: education, healthcare, employment, protection of human dignity, and preservation of identity. Yemen comprises regions with multiple cultural and historical identities, and this pluralism must be politically managed rather than suppressed in the name of a single identity.
During discussions of the Southern issue, a federal state model was proposed at the National Dialogue Conference and later appeared in the draft constitution. However, that model exhibited a significant degree of centralization in its institutional and financial design, prompting widespread reservations among many Southern factions who saw it as failing to meet their demands for restoring the Southern state or achieving broad self-rule. The draft constitution focused on addressing the Southern issue through political representation in federal institutions on the basis of parity between North and South during a transitional period, treating the South as two federal regions within a single federal state. Meanwhile, sovereign powers and management of key resources remained largely concentrated in the federal government. Parity in political representation was also limited to a transitional period not exceeding two electoral terms. For many in the South, this vision appeared to reproduce a centralized state in a new form rather than represent a genuine shift toward federalism that guarantees extensive local control over authority and resources.
Hence the need to consider multiple options for a new governance formula that could be discussed within a broad political dialogue. Among these options is an asymmetric federal system in the South granting regions wide-ranging powers consistent with their particularities—including local management of resources and the existence of legislative, judicial, security, and executive institutions at the regional level, alongside a shared social protection fund within the South.
In the North, discussion could explore a hybrid federal model with varying degrees of decentralization depending on the political and social realities of each area—combining centralized administration in some regions with broader self-governance in others, such as Marib and Taiz.
The dialogue could also consider a cooperative federal framework between South and North bringing them together in shared institutions—potentially termed a “Yemeni Cooperation Council”—focused on economic integration, security and military cooperation, and social protection, while preserving the political identity of each side. This framework could also be envisioned as a Yemeni Union inspired by the European Union model, in which member states retain their political sovereignty and internal systems while cooperating in areas such as economy, trade, mobility, and shared policies serving citizens’ interests.
At first glance, such proposals may appear complex in a context marked by prolonged conflict and weak state institutions. Yet the purpose of presenting them is not to offer a ready-made model, but to open space for thinking about multiple governance formulas that could be discussed within a consensual political process.
The idea of asymmetric federalism in the South and hybrid federalism in the North is rooted in the historical evolution of statehood and governance patterns in each. In the South, governance was not historically centralized and unified; rather, it was marked by plurality and diversity—from local sultanates to protectorates and local administrations, then the post-independence state after 1967. In the North, the state evolved around a strong political center in the highlands, from the Imamate systems to the republican state after 1962, which maintained varying degrees of centralized political and administrative decision-making.
Thus, the proposal is grounded in a historical reading of the different governance trajectories in South and North, seeking to build a political system that learns from these experiences rather than ignoring them or imposing a single model that fails to reflect reality.
Yet the success of any political formula ultimately depends on improving citizens’ lives. Combating corruption seriously, providing essential services such as electricity, water, healthcare, and education, paying salaries regularly, and ending the use of services as tools of political conflict are all fundamental conditions for rebuilding trust and restoring stability.
Reaching such a vision requires an organized political dialogue that begins in the South, then in the North, and finally brings both together in a comprehensive national dialogue. Regional support—particularly from Saudi Arabia—could play a crucial role in sponsoring this path and supporting the consensus needed to build a new system of governance in Yemen that places human dignity above all else and contributes to a more stable and prosperous Middle East.
In the end, the issue is not about defending unity or secession as slogans. It is about seeking a just formula that enables everyone—South and North alike—to build homelands that protect their dignity, accommodate their diversity, and open pathways toward stability and development.
