Stability—in all its economic, social, and political dimensions—is an indicator of a political system’s success and a prerequisite for a dignified life, given its positive effects on the growth and development of individuals, societies, and states. It is a goal pursued by all countries and societies without exception, for which they prepare strategies and plans. No society can achieve economic, educational, cultural, or political development in the absence of political stability; it is a necessary condition for renaissance and progress, and an essential requirement for growth and advancement. The concept of political stability and criteria for measuring it: To prevent political stability from becoming a subject of controversy and political point-scoring, scholars and thinkers have sought to establish specific criteria for measuring the degree of stability prevailing in countries and societies. At the same time, they have developed indicators for measuring political instability. This article seeks to discuss these issues by defining political stability and its measurement indicators, as well as defining political instability and its indicators. The term “political stability” refers to “the ability of a political system to perform its functions, respond to public demands, and adapt to changes in its surrounding internal and external environment in a way that earns it the political legitimacy necessary for its continued existence and prevents it from being exposed to acts of violence or conflicts that are difficult to control through peaceful means and within the framework of adherence to constitutional rules.” ^.. Since there is no consensus among thinkers and strategists on the indicators of political stability, we have identified the most important indicators mentioned in this context—those around which there is a considerable degree of agreement. The following are among the most important indicators of political stability in states:

• National integration, and the absence—or limited presence—of separatist tendencies and racial or ethnic conflicts:

This does not necessarily mean national homogeneity. Rather, it means having a clear vision and strategy for dealing with ethnic and cultural diversity in a way that achieves national integration, resolves conflicts, and eliminates separatist tendencies.

• The legitimacy of the political system. Legitimacy means “justifying the ruling authority through the logic of the collective will”—that is, the people’s acceptance of the governing authority and their voluntary compliance with it. Legitimacy arises from direct engagement with, and responsiveness to, people’s needs and from efforts to fulfill national aspirations.
• The strength of the political system and its ability to protect society and the state against any potential external threats. A political system’s capacity to confront external threats is among its most important functions, as it concerns the very survival of the state.
• Governmental stability: the absence of rapid cabinet changes is considered a positive indicator of stable governance, whereas frequent and rapid changes in the ruling authority are among the major phenomena associated with governmental instability. This phenomenon is characteristic of the political process in many developing countries. In a country such as Honduras, the executive authority changed 616 times between 1824 and 1950. Ecuador experienced changes involving 41 heads of state between 1940 and 1949. In Bolivia, no president completed a constitutional term between 1941 and 1951.

Frequent cabinet reshuffles carried out by some governing systems may indicate political instability. Some believe they result either from conflicts among political factions within the system, or from struggles and bargaining occurring within it. They may also indicate a political system’s inability to choose suitable individuals for political office. However, rapid ministerial change does not always indicate a weak political system. It may occur as part of development, improvement, and reform, and may reflect the system’s effective responsiveness and ability to adapt quickly to changing events. At the same time, the absence of cabinet changes does not necessarily indicate the political system’s stability or strength. A system may remain unchanged for a long period while internally deteriorating, or continue solely through military force while being unable to respond to citizens’ aspirations and lacking legitimacy in their eyes.

• Parliamentary stability ، Parliament is the voice of the people, and legislatures generally derive their legitimacy from the people. This strengthens parliament’s position in relation to other branches of government. In some cases, the executive dissolves parliament before it completes its legal term. In other cases, some members of parliament lose their seats, as occurred in the dissolution of the Sudanese Communist Party in 1965. A significant group of members may also resign in order to disrupt parliamentary work, particularly in constituent assemblies whose task is to approve a constitution. Mass resignations can prevent the assembly from passing the constitution, all within the context of political maneuvering. In every case, such practices indicate parliamentary instability and negatively affect the functioning of the political system as a whole.
• Encouraging citizens’ political participation and opening channels of communication between rulers and the ruled. Political participation refers to “the activities through which members of society contribute, directly or indirectly, to choosing rulers and shaping public policy.” The participation meant here is not limited to direct involvement in state institutions and political decision-making; it also includes participation in local associations, trade unions, religious institutions, and every group that possesses authority and seeks to influence political life.
• The absence of violence and the disappearance of civil wars, separatist movements, and rebellions. This is achieved through an integrated strategy capable of eliminating all causes of conflict and division within the state, ensuring that every individual feels fully equal to others and an inseparable part of it—owing it loyalty and appreciation and being prepared to sacrifice for it. In this way, wars and conflicts cease, and citizens turn toward development and reconstruction.
• The success of government economic policies and the authority’s ability to meet people’s needs and enable them to live with dignity. Meeting people’s basic needs and supporting poorer social groups are among the issues that consume the greatest effort of Western governments today, and they are among the foremost items in political parties’ platforms during election seasons in Western countries.

If this is the case in developed countries—where incomes are high and individuals can be relatively independent of the state and rely on themselves—then citizens of developing countries are even more in need of state services in food, health care, education, and other areas of life.

• Low levels of internal displacement and external migration: Internal displacement may indicate either the absence of balanced development, as people move toward areas where development projects are concentrated, or a search for safety when war prevails in parts of the country and citizens seek refuge in safer areas. External migration may occur for political reasons—political asylum—or in search of employment opportunities not provided by the state, or because available incomes are too low to ensure a dignified life.
• The availability of mechanisms for political succession: this means having mechanisms for the smooth, legal, and legitimate transfer of power and leadership from one person to another, with the possibility of peacefully rotating leadership positions and replacing individuals. The paths for advancement and departure should be clear and open, according to agreed-upon procedures and criteria set out in the constitution.
• Effective management of the state’s foreign relations. : One indicator of a state’s political instability is poor foreign relations with neighboring countries, the international community, or international and regional organizations. This may result from poor management of foreign-policy affairs due to the incompetence of those responsible; the conflict-oriented nature of the ruling regime; a lack of concern for establishing good relations with neighbors and the international and regional community; or a lack of awareness of the importance of foreign relations and their impact even on domestic policy. It may also result from internal policies that displease external parties, such as ethnic persecution of a population group, failure to guarantee freedom of worship for a particular segment of the population, human-rights violations, or persecution of specific ethnic groups or categories such as women.

In fact, there is a common view that internal instability may lead a state to undertake foreign adventures in an effort to unite the domestic front and strengthen the ruling regime’s legitimacy. Others reject this view, arguing that war has never been a factor of cohesion; rather, it has often led to the fragmentation of societies and the disintegration of ruling regimes.

• Behavioral stability: by this we mean the ideological consistency of the ruling system and the absence of sudden shifts from one ideology to another. Of course, it cannot be claimed that all political systems operate according to a specific ideology in the strict scholarly sense of the term. Most political systems rely on a combination of multiple ideas and ideologies, shaping them into their political goals and programs. They may maintain these for a period of time and then gradually move, smoothly, toward new ideas and visions. Unstable systems, however, shift rapidly—through a cycle of action and reaction—from one ideology to another and from one school of thought to another. This indicates the absence of a political vision within the system, causes it to lose credibility, undermines its legitimacy, and threatens its future.

Indicators of Political Instability: Conversely, there are several indicators for measuring political instability, such as: the number of political assassinations within a state; the number of general strikes; the presence of guerrilla warfare; the number of governmental crises within the political system; the number of purges carried out in state institutions; the number of riots within the state; the number of revolutions that have occurred; the number of anti-government demonstrations; and the number of people killed in domestic violence. Indicators of external conflict that contribute to instability include: the number of demonstrations against the state’s foreign policy; the number of protests against that policy; the number of negative sanctions imposed on the state; the number of countries that have cut diplomatic relations with it; the number of times the state’s ambassadors have been recalled or foreign ambassadors expelled; the number of threats issued against the state; the number of times military action has been used as a solution to external problems facing the state; the number of wars in which the state has participated; the number of times military forces have been mobilized without war breaking out; the number of accusations directed against the state; and the number of deaths in external conflicts. In conclusion, it should be noted and emphasized that political stability, in its essence and substance, is not the product of military and security power alone—although such power is necessary for security and stability. Rather, it is the result of political, social, economic, and cultural measures that make every group and sector of society a vigilant guardian of security and a fundamental source of stability. True stability requires, in addition to military preparedness, genuine political steps that deepen mutual trust between the authorities and society. We observe that countries which are militarily and security-wise advanced but politically underdeveloped are those in which political stability is shaken by the simplest causes and factors. By contrast, countries with an active political life, in which social forces participate in public political activity according to clear foundations and principles, are stable and cohesive countries capable of confronting all enemy conspiracies and schemes.