Historical Background
Until its independence from France in 1946, Syria had never constituted a unified state or separate political entity. Syria had always been part of various empires or controlled by external rulers such as the Persians, Greeks and Romans. From 1516 to the end of World War
I, Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire. The French and the British had promised to make Syria an independent kingdom after the Arab army defeated the Ottomans and captured Damascus. But with the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916, the French and the British divided between them the provinces of the Ottoman Empire situated outside the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, in 1920, the League of Nations handed Syria and Lebanon as mandated territories over to France.
Between 1920 and 1946, the French prevented the development of the Syrian national community by dividing the country into several administrative and political units along regional and sectarian lines. The French also fostered sectarian, class and communal separatism, widening the gap between the majority Sunnis and various minorities by recruiting members of the Alawite and Druze minorities for its “Special Troupes of the Levant.” At independence in 1946, therefore, Syria lacked an exclusive central authority that could serve as a focus of identity and loyalty for the whole population; instead, Syria was a
geographical expression with no unified political identity or community.
Syria’s troubled political and economic pre- and post-independence era and the defeat in the 1948 Arab-Israel War intensified conflict between politicians and army officers who capitalized on popular discontent to legitimatize military take-overs.1 This accounts for a succession of military coups (more than 10 successful ones between 1949 and 1970) and the rising influence of various military factions in politics and power struggles. Post-independence instability and increasing polarization in the political system led the elites to dissolve the Syrian Arab Republic and create in 1958 a political union with Gamal Nasser’s
Egypt, the United Arab Republic. The union collapsed in 1961, followed by the first Ba‘th military coup in 1963. Although it failed, the union was a turning point in modern Syria under which three important developments took place: (1) All political parties were banned;
(2) a comprehensive agrarian reform law was introduced; and (3) socialist reforms were initiated through the nationalization of major sectors of the economy.2 In other words, the union accelerated the process of state expansion by exporting the Egyptian system of economic and political management and laid the basis for consolidating one-party rule that used the state to advance development and block the formation of independent social, political or civil organizations.
The promise of egalitarianism was the pillar upon which the Ba‘th Party legitimized its rule while institutionalizing state linkage to peasants, farmers and the working class. Furthermore, the nationalization of industry and commerce, which brought the economy fully under state control, was decisive in transforming Syria’s power and social structure. In all this, the regime promised stability and social security. Originally, the Ba‘thist regime in Syria built its political power on mass rural mobilization and applying drastic socialist reforms. What was
most transformed under the Ba‘th Party was the character of the ruling class: a new rural- based elite replaced the urban rich of Damascus and Aleppo. For its main support base, the Ba‘th Party recruited those who were outside the system of patronage and connections, such as rural professionals, teachers, doctors, students and minorities. The Ba‘thist campaigns of secularism, socialism, and Arab nationalism promised equitable income distribution and the reduction of inequalities between the periphery and center and between rich and poor. Yet one outcome was sectarian mobilization among depressed groups who benefited from the reduction of inequalities as well as upward mobility mainly among the minorities.
The planned course of radical social transformation, however, took a different path after Syria’s decisive defeat in the Arab-Israeli War of June 1967 and Israel’s capture and annexation of the Golan Heights. The defeat exacerbated a split within the Ba‘th Party: Reformists/pragmatists led by Hafiz al-Assad differed with radicals led by Salah Jadid on how to deal with the consequences of the war. The reformist/pragmatist wing, which had a strong base in the military, held that radical Ba‘thist reforms undermined national unity, increased Syria’s regional isolation and provoked military escalation by Israel and the West.3
Thus, Assad’s coup of 1970, dubbed the “Corrective Movement,” removed the radicals from key positions in the party and state institutions, and maintained the broad lines of the Ba‘thist program. By being more pragmatic and less ideological the Assad camp paved the way for new regional, economic and political shifts that consolidated Assad’s rule and prevented the recurrence of military coups, institutional factionalism, and wars with Israel.
The Pillars of Assad’s Rule
In a weak state like Syria, Assad aimed to create a cohesive regime by conflating its identity with that of the state. Hence, any effort to dislodge the regime was interpreted as a challenge to the state itself. Unlike regimes in strong states with strong national identity, however, the military was loyal not to the state, but to the regime. Assad’s regime constructed three important reservoirs of power for its preservation: (1) a cohesive elite structure of power in direct control of state institutions; (2) a cohesive business sector dependent on the regime; and (3) the adoption of violence as a modality of governance.
Syrian history bump.