Breaking with Authoritarianism: The Test of Syria’s Transition

Transitioning away from authoritarianism in Syria demands sustained institutional restructuring and extraordinary efforts during the transition from the Assad dictatorship to a new Syria. While the Syrian case is starkly resonant today, --dir--ectly impacting us as citizens, it is by no means an anomaly. This becomes evident when revisiting recent and distant historical precedents surrounding the collapse of dictatorships and the rise of states emerging from the grip of oppression, and the dual cults of power and personality. Such examples abound, from the fall of Mussolini to the regimes of Pinochet, Idi Amin, Gaddafi, and most recently, Assad.

All of these tyrants employed strikingly similar methods in managing their countries, treating them as though they were foreign territories. To subjugate their peoples and extract absolute loyalty, they weaponized fear, intimidation, deprivation, and injustice, while systematically pitting one socio-political group against another. Their sole objective was to cling to power and monopolize the state’s resources and capabilities. This aligns precisely with Abdulrahman al-Kawakibi’s observation that a tyrant interprets the people’s fear as “proof of their obedience, and their peace of mind as synonymous with his satisfaction.”

The resort of autocrats to absolute violence against their own citizens, combined with leveraging and inviting foreign intervention, as epitomized by the Assad regime, is a striking phenomenon that warrants deep study. Furthermore, it has institutionalized what international law defines as “excessive use of force,” leaving deep-seated scars and repercussions that will be immensely difficult to purge from the society and state of the new Syria.

The Syrian Lesson
It is an intriguing paradox that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) recently hosted a panel discussion probing Assad’s authoritarianism. Broadcast on its widely acclaimed program “Ideas,” the episode focused on the rise and fall of the most notorious dictatorships in the modern world, raising profound questions about issues that fundamentally shape human lives.

Regarding Syria, the central question was what we can learn from the rise, consolidation, and anticipated collapse of authoritarianism under Assad’s rule, tracing the dynamics that ultimately led to the fall of his regime in December 2024. Indeed, the moderator, Nahlah Ayed, who had been blacklisted by the Assad regime, brought a profound, firsthand understanding of the Syrian context, from the initial revolutionary phase to the post-authoritarian transition following the December 2024 collapse.

This deep familiarity elevated the insights presented, which began by tracing the features and underlying causes of the internal and external fractures that foreshadowed the regime’s downfall. Hence, it is vital to scrutinize the internal catalysts of this collapse, and crucially, the systemic policies that initially sparked the Syrian uprising. These factors remain indispensable to any serious analysis of the regime’s end, a point articulated with utmost clarity by Dr. Ibrahim Draji in his new research, “Revolutionary Legitimacy and the Transitional Phase in the New Syria.”

These themes were further enriched by two scholars who have rigorously examined the Syrian reality and its socio-political trajectories: Basileus Zeno and Marie-Joëlle Zahar. Their compelling insights anchored the symposium, in which I was a privileged participant, before a Canadian audience eager to understand both what transpired in Syria and the realities unfolding there today.

Perhaps the most profound question concerns the lessons learned from the fall of the dictatorship in Syria: Do current indicators point to a genuine, permanent break with Assad’s tyranny,´-or-are there lingering anxieties that the transitional phase might regenerate a new form of authoritarian governance? As a historical truism, the inevitable collapse of despotic regimes cannot be realized without the expression of the collective public will. This stands as one of the defining features of the Syrian revolution--;-- it was a popular uprising against an oligarchy that had transformed Syria into a realm of fear. It was a mass movement aimed not merely at dismantling the Assad dictatorship, but at reclaiming freedom and national dignity for every individual. Consequently, any rising authority must keep these two core elements at the forefront of every step taken to structure the new governance model, ensuring that tyranny is prevented from resurfacing in any shape´-or-form.

Belief in the inevitable downfall of tyranny remains insufficient unless it is actively tethered to the practices of the new authority. This requires implementing policies that forge a just relationship with society, institutionalize legitimacy, and establish a clean break with authoritarianism and its mechanisms, while safeguarding the nation against any potential regression. This, perhaps, is one of the most critical lessons offered by the Syrian precedent.

Foundations of a Clean Break and Confronting Authoritarianism
Within the context of the ongoing scrutiny and monitoring of the Syrian landscape, it is not difficult to discern the myriad, multifaceted stumbles confronting the country’s political and social transformation. Crucially, these critical discussions are taking place outside the official frameworks of the interim´-or-transitional authority. Independent op-eds, policy papers, and research projects are shedding light on these challenges with absolute transparency. Concurrently, social media has emerged as a vital arena for public oversight, holding the new Syrian authorities accountable across various sectors, despite palpable attempts to stifle freedom of expression, a problem compounded by the absolute absence of an independent regulatory oversight system.

In this light, the recent convention of the Syrian People’s Assembly (Parliament) provided an indispensable opportunity to scrutinize the mechanisms of vetting, selection, and appointment. This critique extends far beyond the legislative “lawmakers” themselves, encompassing the broader spectrum of state institutions and their legislative, judicial, and executive frameworks.

Undoubtedly, emerging from the entrenched darkness of the previous regime and guiding the “attainable” dreams of the Syrian people into the light is a monumental task. The previous autocracy meticulously engineered a deeply rooted apparatus of rules and structural foundations that governed the nation for half a century. Furthermore, the time elapsed since the collapse of the regime is simply insufficient to completely eradicate the deep-seated roots of tyranny from Syrian soil.

However, without resorting to convenient excuses´-or-justifications, we must critically evaluate the policies being implemented by the current authority. We must rigorously assess its commitment to cultivating the legal, political, and social infrastructure required for the birth of a new state, one that decisively breaks with autocracy, unilateral governance, and the blatant usurpation of state administration witnessed today. It is precisely these current overreaches that are fueling legitimate and deep-seated anxieties regarding the future trajectory of the transitional phase.

There are four fundamental criteria that constitute a clear roadmap for transforming Syria from a nation exhausted by dictatorship into a state governed by robust national institutions, regardless of the political leanings´-or-affiliations of the ruling power. This transformation begins with activating the principle of the separation of powers, establishing an independent judiciary, institutionalizing state apparatuses, and opening avenues for broad societal participation in political decision-making. Furthermore, it requires strengthening public freedoms, fostering an influential and active civil society within public life, culminating in a system of oversight and accountability that safeguards both society and the ruling authority alike.
In fact, these criteria command a universal consensus among politicians, legal experts, and intellectuals worldwide, as well as within Syria, including the new Syrian authority, which has explicitly voiced its commitment to these principles. However, the true test lies in translating this commitment into tangible action through laws and institutions that drive genuine state-building. These promises must not remain hollow declarations echoed across a weary and deeply marginalized Syrian landscape, a failure that would ultimately subject the “legitimacy of liberation” to harsh and deeply unsettling questions.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 2