Dictators sow the seeds of their own destruction

But Syria and Libya share similar social backgrounds: tribal divisions in Libya and religious sects in the case of Syria. Syrian President Bashar al Assad continues in power based on the support of the army and his Alawite Shi’ite religious sect, members of whom hold senior security and other important positions. He also has the support of other minorities such as the Twelver Shi’ites, the Ismailies, the Druze and the Christians, though some of them have broken rank by joining the opposition for the sake of seeking freedom and building a future democratic Syria.

The Alawite Shia have been leading Syria since the 1970s. They make up about 15 per cent of the population, and they rule over the remaining 75 per cent of Syrian Sunni Muslims and other religious groups. The Syrian leadership has also reined in support from some Sunni clerics, such as  Muhammad Said Ramdhan al-Buti. This has provided religious legitimisation for the Assad regime, much to the chagrin of the Sunni majority. 

Sectarian conflict has already started in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia,  Qatar and Jordan represent the mainly Sunni faction, while Iran and Hezbullah form the Shia faction. Saudi Arabia opposes Assad but supports Bahrain’s Sunni minority regime in its rule over the Shia majority there.  

Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa, a Sunni Muslim, recently remarked that he requested military help from the Gulf Cooperation Council in March 2011, to protect Bahrain’s “strategic installations” in case Iran became more aggressive. Paradoxically, while not relinquishing power or initiating reforms himself, he has called upon Assad to listen to the Syrian Sunni opposition. 

Meanwhile, Iran, the leading Shia state, has obstructed any discussion or criticism of Assad’s Syria in its media and public squares. The irony of the Middle-Eastern political scenario today is that regimes, irrespective of their ideology, support democratic movements in other countries except their own – for example, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in Syria, and Iran in Bahrain. At the same time, Israel is now concerned about the consequences of post-Assad Syria in relation to its own control of the Golan Heights and its overall status in the region.

In order to save his regime, President Assad has called for a referendum on February 26 on a new constitution, which will allow for a multi-party system. This move has been welcomed internationally only by Russia. But maybe it’s too late. For now it seems that change in Syria will come only from within, at a heavy cost, and it will take longer to achieve. 

The majority of the Syrian people have been struggling for freedom since the Hama massacre of 1982, in which 40,000 Syrians were killed during the reign of Assad senior. Outsiders do not want to engage in Syria for their own reasons. The United States, with an upcoming presidential election, and Europe, mired in economic crisis, are not in the mood for military intervention. 

Thus the onus falls on Turkey, which seeks to be a model for the “Arab Spring” to emulate. But as a neighbour of Syria, Turkey does not want to further stir up the political hornets’ nest of Kurdish nationalism in the region. Or be seen as an invader. 

The motley assortment of Arab states has only mixed democracy credentials so far. The only genuine support for democracy in the Arab world  has come from recently liberated Tunisia and Egypt. Thus, what the Middle Eastern countries can do in dealing with Assad is limited, and this only prolongs his grip on power. Today’s Middle East represents an Arabian crucible – a prelude to its future uncertainty.

The Arab Spring has sent the world of international and regional relations into turmoil. On the one hand, the recent veto of the Syrian resolution at the UN by Russia and China smells of a Cold War stratagem along old ideological lines. It reflects the selective and limited role that an international organisation can play in resolving national conflicts. Thus, history has not ended, nor liberal democracy triumphed globally.

The year of the Arab Spring has brought a heavy toll in terms of lives lost and economic opportunity squandered. Around 7,000 people have died in Syria alone. The initiation of early political reforms by authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, instead of repression, can bring an end to the unabated cycle of violence, but the incumbent non-democratic regimes are in no mood to give up their privileges for the democratic aspirations of the people. The dictators are not afraid of confrontation. 

Syria’s Assad intends to remain in power for as long as possible, no matter the cost. The longer these states oppose the democratic demands of the people, the more deep and severe the destruction of their own countries. It will take them another 20 years or more to recover from this catastrophe.

As the international community talks of erecting humanitarian corridors or buffer zones, and assistance to help the suffering Syrians, Assad and his supporters inside Syria and the region have been emboldened. Meanwhile, religious extremists will exploit the situation for their benefit, causing long-lasting instability in Syria, not different from that in Iraq.

Over the last year, Assad has blamed everyone else for the political crisis in Syria – al-Qaeda, Salafis, Islamists, foreigners and, latest, “gangs” – without looking into the historical causes behind it, which lie in the oppressive rule of the last four decades. The Syrian crisis is an internal one similar to that of Mubarak’s Egypt and others. In Syria it is the state’s pot that is black while the opposition’s kettle is still brand new. The grassroots Syrian opposition will fight for freedom and democracy at any cost.

 

Dr Imtiyaz Yusuf is professor of Islamics and religion at the Graduate School of Philosophy and Religion, Assumption University, Bangkok.