It is time to return to Syria of the Fifties

 

Sami Moubayed

"The coming period will be one of freedom for political parties (in Syria)" were the words of President Bashar Al Assad while speaking to Spanish journalists in Damascus in March 2005.

A utopian model would be reform from within, granted slowly by the president: a multi-party system, fair parliamentary elections with no pre-set seats for the Baath Party, an effective and uncorrupted civil service, a free press and an independent judiciary.

In short, this means returning to the Syria that existed prior to the Syrian-Egyptian union of 1958. The pre-union era can be described as a true democracy the healthiest in the Middle East (matched only in Lebanon).

The socialists, officers, and politicians of the post-1963 order accused this system of having been elitist, feudal and unjust, concentrated in the hands of the urban notability, claiming that it was a dictatorship of the elite, representing urban Syria with no regard to its rural population, rather than a true democracy.

True, it was a democracy of the elite and this is what Syria needs today a democracy of the elite that is educated, cosmopolitan and dedicated to the improvement of Syria.

A popular democracy would mean one thing: the Islamists taking over the streets in Syria. No civilised or moderate Syrian would want that to happen.

The Syrians cannot have a popular democracy because democratic culture does not exist in Syria. It never did.

In 1949, when Syria's first coup d'etat took place, bringing down the democratically elected regime of president Shukri Al Quwatli, the people took to the streets, cheering for Syria's new leader, General Husni Al Za'im. Today, nearly 60 years later, democratic culture is still lacking in Syria.

The future, if true democracy is implemented, would be for non-ideological and liberal parties that represent the socio-political and economic interests of Syrian groups, towns and districts.

This would be similar to the parties that operated prior to 1963, where the National Party represented the interests of Damascus and the People's Party represented the interests of Aleppo. These parties had no ideology, just interests.

In fact, ideological parties were never too popular in Syria. Michel Aflaq, for example, the founder of the Baath, ran for office on a party ticket in 1943 and 1949, losing both times because Baathist ideology was not appealing to the Syrians.

Khalid Bakdash, the long-time leader of the Syrian Communist Party, ran for office in 1943 and also suffered a great defeat, not making it into parliament until 1954.

When the leftists realised that they had no chance of coming to power through the ballots, they chose the bullets.

Aflaq willingly and happily threw his weight behind the officers who seized power in 1963, although it contradicted with all of the democratic principles he had been preaching since 1943.

Aflaq, more of an opportunist than his partner Salah Al Din Al Bitar, went on and worked with Saddam Hussain from 1979 onwards, being chief ideologue for one of the most ruthless regimes of the 20th century.

If this was the democratic culture of someone Sorbonne-educated, polished and refined like Aflaq, one should not blame the masses for not having a proper democratic culture.

The new Syria that is being created will witness the founding and mushrooming of non-ideological parties.

If a true democracy were implemented in Syria, pro-American politicians will be the most unpopular, because a majority of the Syrians have lost faith in the US promises of democracy.

This immediately writes off pro-American figures such as the US-embraced Fareed Al Ghadri and others who are working and receiving funds from the Americans.

The current figures in the opposition, inside Syria, are also, not-too-popular among the Syrians. They are either leftovers of the early Baathist era (1966-1970), members of the Muslim Brotherhood, or Marxists and communists.

They are people who tried and failed at changing things. What they have been demanding for many years, however, are without doubt, the desires of every Syrian.

Everyone wants democracy, respect of human rights, political pluralism, freedom of the press and a general amnesty.

Yet, as ideologies fail their creators all over the world, the new generation of Syrians will head towards politicians who have no ideological convictions and are working only for the interests of their respective communities. This means, the future is for moderate politicians in Syria.

Surprisingly the moderates who are currently willing and eager to engage in political life are two generations of Syrians. One is that of young men born in the mid-1970s who are now in their 20s and 30s and who are thirsty for political action.

The second generation of current political activists is that of Syrians who were born in the 1930s and are currently in their late 60s.

They were young adults in the 1950s when democracy was flourishing in Syria. They had a dream and a vision for Syria, both of which came to an abrupt end when the union with Egypt was created in 1958 and again after the officers came to power in 1963.

These Syrians grew old with the years but the dream and vision for Syria remained young.

The two active generations, however, are the ones who can, if given a free hand, create a strong and healthy new Syria.

---------

Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst. He is the author of "Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000." (Cune Press 2005).

October 18, 2005 (Gulf News).