Syria: De-Baathification from the Top?
A regime caught in the throes of self-reinvention
By Ammar Abdulhamid
Syrian Studies Association Newsletter
November 2004
The months that followed the US-led invasion of Iraq witnessed mounting
pressures on the neighboring country of Syria and its ruling Baathist
regime. These pressures, in many ways, came as a result of the Syrian
regime's combative stands vis-à-vis the United States during the early
stages of the invasion and its support of the nascent insurgency against
it, and were thus aimed at forcing the regime to reverse its policies.
Soon, however, the scope of change demanded of the Syrian regime
expanded to include its backing of outlawed Palestinian groups and its
continued dabbling in Lebanon’s internal affairs and its support for
Hezbollah’s activities there.
Despite this focus on
regional policies, the pressures exerted by the US and its occasional
threats ended up creating a wave of panic that swept across the various
ranks of the regime, and the country as a whole, strengthening of the
reformist elements in the regime and emboldening the country's
opposition members and rights activists. The result was the launching of
a new and more bold Damascus Spring, in which calls for lifting the
state of emergency and amending the Constitution were once again heard.
But actually, it was
the Baath Regional Command, the Party's highest executive body, that
took the most important step at the time when it passed a resolution
calling on party officials and institutions to distance themselves from
the "daily executive work" of governance. While this move seems to have
come more as an easing of the bureaucratic restrictions on the
operations of the various reform element within the regime, than as a
sign of political openness, it soon acquired certain political
dimensions as well, as it served to further embolden the country's
hopeful activists.
The debate on reform
soon moved closer to home and began to take place on the Internet
through such websites as ilaf.com and thisissyira.com, but more
importantly on the pages of the electronic bulletin Kulluna Shurakaa
(all4syria.org), run by a Syrian engineer known for his affiliations
with the reform-minded Syrian President. The Kulluna Shurakaa Bulletin
encouraged in a sense an indirect dialogue between government and
opposition, and eventually lured some government officials to come out
in support of reforms, political as well as economic.
Eventually, and in the
last few weeks, the dialogue moved to the pages of the country's
state-run press, and involved important members of the Baath Party
itself, such as the editor-in-chief of the Baath Party's official news
paper, al-Baath, who actually dared question the continued wisdom of
maintaining the state of emergency in the country, at least in its
current comprehensive formulation.
The next such coup
came soon afterwards when the Syrian Vice-President, Abdulhaleem Khaddam,
was asked during an interview with the country's only private political
magazine (owned by Bilal al-Turkmani, the son of the country's new
Minister of Defense) whether Article 8 of the Constitution affirming
"the leadership role of the Baath Party in state and society" can be
amended. Although the answer was a categorical and unsurprising no, the
very fact that the interview took place at all on the pages of a Syrian
magazine of things is in itself indicative of the depth of the regime's
crisis and its attempt to appear more open.
This attempt at
maintaining the appearance of openness, though mostly designed for the
benefit of external observers, is, nonetheless, meant for internal
consumption as well, that is, for the internal consumption of the regime
itself.
For in the aftermath
of the retirement of Syria's longtime Minister of Defense, Mustafa Tlas,
and the enforcement, by presidential decree, of the compulsory
retirement age in the ranks of the military, many high ranking figures
in the regime are now trying to reposition themselves so as to
avoid being purged, no matter how benignly, or having their powers
curbed.
This does not,
however, mean that these elements are necessarily losing their power and
stature in the regime. Rather, what is taking place is a simple attempt
at “playing it safe,” so to speak, vis-à-vis new and old internal rivals
and opponents. In other words, members of the regime are simply trying
to outsmart each other in a new round of internal power conflict, with
the net result being that the regime as a whole always is outsmarting
itself, and painting itself into an ever more tight and dark corner.
For in reality, this
entire process of de-baathification from the top comes as a half-hearted
haphazard measure, one that lacks a guiding vision and a strong will to
back it up. This has indeed been the bane of the reform process in Syria
from the very beginning, a fact that reflects that particular character,
disposition and aptitude of Syria's young President. What this means in
practice is that that any progress made on any front could easily be
checked, even reversed, at any given moment. This indeed seems to be the
gist of what has been taking place over the last four years. More
importantly though, this seems to be the gist of what has just taken
place with regard's to Syria's dabbling in Lebanon.
At the time when the
Syrian regime seems to have gone to some pains to distance itself from
appearing to be overtly dabbling in Lebanese affairs, out of the blue,
it did an about-face and went ahead and interfered, in a most blatant
and visible manner, in what should have been, even to the most foolish
of observes, a purely internal Lebanese affair, namely the presidential
elections. When push came to shove, members of the Syrian regime,
especially those ranked among the old guard or, as some observers refer
to them, the “status quo beneficiaries,” could not but fall back on old
habits and attitudes, having failed to develop new ones.
The repositioning and
jockeying in this case simply had to stop, for there was a clear-cut
issue at stake here – that of continued undisturbed control. A new
Lebanese President, no matter how friendly to Syria, would have brought
with him a new set of attitudes and issues to address, at a time when
the Syrian regime, with its old and new guards, is already too
bewildered, confused and shaken.
So, at the end of the
day, and unable to invent a new vision for itself and for the future,
the Syrian regime stuck with the man it knows best. It held its grounds
at the risk of angering even its most useful European ally, France,
because, after all is said and done, it had reached the limits of its
ability to cope.
It is, therefore, safe
to assure that the ongoing process of de-baathification from the top has
proven quite hollow, despite the seemingly sincere intentions behind it
on part of the President and his supporters. The lack of a vision, a
strategy and, more importantly, the political will to back it up were
the decisive elements here.
Still, the future of the country and the regime
depends in no small part on the ability of the regime, or the
opposition, to provide these missing elements. Without this, external
pressures and threats would only serve to make the regime commit more
and more tactical errors in its regional and internal calculations,
eventually isolating itself and providing what could be the prelude to
another Iraqi-style intervention in the region, or, alternatively,
another Lebanese-style civil war, no matter how unlikely such
developments might seem at this stage. For, in this world, dysfunctional
states cannot last forever, and seem to beckon external dabbling and
intervention, or collapse under the weight of their growing internal
problems and contradictions.
|