The world, particularly the Arab region, is closely watching Syria as its political landscape undergoes a dramatic transformation. The speed of this change has surprised many, while others observe with cautious apprehension.
For those familiar with the long-term effects of institutional violence on societies, however, this shift was a predictable outcome. History teaches us that violence breeds counter-violence, a phenomenon whose consequences are both inevitable and deeply unsettling.
Syria’s political upheaval reflects a long-standing demand from its people for change. Years of systemic corruption and widespread violence under the previous regime created a pressure cooker of dissent that eventually reached a breaking point.
In the immediate aftermath of this political shift, several noteworthy developments have emerged. One of the most significant is the relative restraint shown by the armed groups that took control of the capital. Despite fears of widespread violence, the transition has been less bloody than many anticipated.
Supporters of the former regime, as long as they refrained from taking up arms, have largely been spared from harm. This marks a significant departure from the kind of retributive violence often seen in similar situations.
Another critical aspect of this transition is the apparent determination among the new leadership to ensure a peaceful and organised transfer of power. There seems to be a conscious effort to avoid plunging the nation into chaos, a path that has proven disastrous in other countries facing similar upheavals. These efforts, while commendable, represent only the beginning of an arduous journey toward stability and governance.
Institutional violence
It is not yet the time to fully dissect the mistakes of the ousted regime, though some factors are already clear. Chief among them is the strategy of excessive violence pursued by the government over the past decade and a half. This approach not only alienated vast swathes of the population but also intensified resentment and anger, making reconciliation increasingly difficult.
Institutional violence, when codified into laws and legitimised under the guise of governance, poses a grave threat to the very fabric of society. The regime’s treatment of political prisoners stands as a stark reminder of the human cost of its policies. Many prisoners lost hope, and others lost their lives, leaving behind a legacy of trauma that will not be easily erased.
As Syria contemplates its future, two potential scenarios come to mind. The first is reminiscent of Iraq, which remained deeply fractured after the fall of its dictator, struggling for years to rebuild a cohesive and modern state. The absence of a unified Arab initiative in Iraq’s recovery further complicated its trajectory. The second scenario mirrors Libya, where the lack of a strong central government has left the country divided and destabilised.
These scenarios are not unfamiliar to Syria’s new leaders. On the ground, there are striking parallels between Syria’s situation and the experiences of Iraq and Libya. This awareness must guide their approach to governance. One path worth serious consideration is the establishment of a federal state.
While this model may seem radical to some, it has been successfully implemented in several European countries and offers a framework for addressing Syria’s unique challenges.
Deepening divisions
Federalism could provide a structure that respects the country’s diverse geographical and ethnic characteristics while maintaining national unity. A modern constitution based on federal principles would allow regions to govern themselves under a central federal authority with clearly defined powers. This approach could help mitigate the risk of one group dominating others, a scenario that could reignite tensions and deepen divisions.
Ignoring Syria’s complex social fabric and insisting on treating it as a singular, unified entity would be a grave mistake. Such an approach risks perpetuating the very inequities and exclusions that have fuelled decades of conflict. After years of suffering, Syrians are unlikely to tolerate policies that fail to account for their diverse identities and needs.
Another challenge for the new leadership is addressing the widespread demonisation of the armed factions that played a key role in overthrowing the regime. Reassuring both the domestic population and the international community will require tangible actions on the ground.
Building trust and fostering stability is a far more complex task than the initial act of liberation. The new authority must demonstrate its commitment to governance, inclusivity, and the rule of law.
The cult of personality, which permeated every level of governance under the previous regime, remains a significant obstacle. Uprooting it will require not only time and effort but also a sustained commitment to building a political culture based on accountability and transparency.
Syria stands at a crossroads. The choices its leaders make now will determine whether it emerges as a model for resilience and recovery or falls into the same traps that have ensnared other nations. The world is watching, and so are the Syrian people, who have endured enough.
Mohammad Alrumaihi is an author and Professor of Political Sociology at Kuwait University
_resources1_16a45059ca3_small.jpg)
