Syria, as a nation-state, didn’t exist till 1945, when it turned a founding member of the United Nations. From 1920, following the autumn of the Osmanlis, it had been underneath a French Mandate. Earlier than that, trendy Syria was an administrative division of the Osmanlis, inside the bigger Syria province, which included a lot of the Levant.
Between 1945 and 1963, when the Baathists got here to energy, Syrian politics was marked by fixed upheaval—coup after coup—whereas making an attempt to determine a political system, a type of social nationalism, that didn’t emerge organically from its personal historical past however was as a substitute imported from the West. There was even an try to kind a United Arab Republic with Egypt in 1958, which ultimately paved the best way for the Baathist takeover.
From 1963, the Baathist motion, rooted in Arab socialism, took management, however inner struggles endured till 1970, when Hafez al-Assad seized energy. Assad consolidated and centralized authority, reshaping Baathist ideology to determine his personal dynasty and fuse it with Alawite perception, an offshoot of Shiism that even Shias initially didn’t settle for. This successfully arrange the rule of a spiritual minority with a Western-inspired political ideology over a Sunni majority to whom they have been politically and religiously alien.
Such a rule can survive solely in two methods: first, by way of a terror-inducing police state that suppresses dissent; second, by way of exterior alliances that grant recognition to such a regime, enabling it to function internationally. Whereas the social actuality was extra nuanced as a result of various minorities inside Syria’s borders, these have been defining traits of the Assad regime for its complete length.
The regime additionally justified its energy by invoking the concept of a nation-state that transcended non secular and ethnic divisions. Nonetheless, this was true solely insofar as one accepted the Assad household’s definition of spiritual socialism, as a result of as a nation-state, Syria lacked unifying parts. There was no foundational fable, no frequent language, no shared faith or ethnicity. Which raises the query: what was Syria earlier than that?
For hundreds of years, Syria was a part of the Osmanli Devlet, the time period the Ottomans used for his or her polity. It’s deceptive to translate Devlet as “empire” or “state.” That is the declare of Professor Mehmet Maksudoğlu, a Turkish historian, in his ebook Osmanli Historical past and Establishments. He argues that, based on Osmanli sources, they by no means referred to themselves as “İmparatoriyye-i Osmaniyye,” however somewhat as “Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmaniyye,” which interprets as “The Elegant Osmanli Devlet.”
Why does this matter? Devlet comes from the Arabic dawlat, that means one thing that adjustments, rotates, or alternates. It may also be understood as “polity.” Translating it as “state”, with the Western connotation of the time period, could be incorrect, as a result of a state implies one thing mounted, whereas the time period implies one thing in flux. In accordance with Maksudoğlu, the Osmanlis didn’t view themselves as both a state or an empire—not less than not till the Tanzimat reforms, geared toward centralization, within the mid-nineteenth century. The time period additionally connotes circulation and change, which, when utilized to governance, carries an financial dimension.
This understanding of political group was mirrored of their authorities and establishments. In accordance with Maksudoğlu, a big majority of the Osmanli sadrazams and vazirs weren’t Turkish, just like many members of the elite corps of the military, which was not absolutely centralized. The Osmanlis additionally lacked centralized programs for schooling, healthcare, or social companies, as these have been largely managed by unbiased awqaf, which might be loosely translated as personal social foundations.
Many different options distinguished Osmanli rule from that of a Western empire or later nation-state, however maybe crucial was the aim of the socio-political order. For the Osmanlis, the position of political authority was to allow the institution and flourishing of Islam. Sovereignty and legislative authority didn’t in the end belong to rulers however to God, and in Sunni Islam, there isn’t a divinely appointed ruler (although there may be in Shiism).
From this idea of sovereignty emerges the concept of the Ummah, which, based on Wadah Khanfar, former Director-Basic of Al Jazeera and creator of The First Spring: Political & Strategic Praxis of the Prophet of Islam, is a political one. In accordance with Khanfar, the Ummah was a suprapolitical neighborhood to which varied Islamic powers—usually in battle with each other—have been related. When the Crusaders invaded the Center East, the Fatimids of Egypt initially noticed them as a possibility to problem the Abbasids, however later allied with them when confronted with the better collective menace posed to the Ummah.
The idea of the Ummah as a political entity was not strictly tied to being Muslim. For the primary two centuries of Islamic enlargement throughout the Center East and Central Asia, about 70% of the inhabitants was not Muslim. Ethnicity, language, or tradition was due to this fact not decisive in being a part of the Ummah or later the Osmanli Devlet: in case you have been Muslim, or agreed to be dominated by them, you can be accepted inside the Muslim polity.
That is, after all, an idealized model; the truth was much more nuanced and infrequently contradictory. However you will need to perceive that this was a widely known and accepted framework, and rulers may very well be known as upon to uphold its requirements. One may dislike Islam or the Osmanlis, however the truth stays that till the early twentieth century, Syria and far of the Center East operated underneath a political paradigm very completely different from that of the West on the time.
One other key distinction on this paradigm was financial group. The rise of the nation-state is inseparable from the rise of banking and capitalism. One may argue that the idea of the nation-state started to take form with the Westphalian Treaties of 1648, following the Thirty Years’ Struggle, and culminates with the tip of what De Gaulle known as the “Second Thirty Years’ Struggle,” in 1944.
This era of roughly three centuries coincided with the rise of the banking system. The Financial institution of England, based in 1694—whereas not the primary financial institution—was the primary to which a nation turned indebted. The top of World Struggle II introduced concerning the Worldwide Financial Fund and the World Financial institution.
That is no minor element. Fiat foreign money and banking have been prohibited by nearly all Islamic students till the early twentieth century. It was solely after the autumn of the Ummah as a political idea, the colonization of Arab and Muslim-majority lands, and the notion of Western superiority that Islamic students started to allow fiat foreign money and banking establishments. In reality, one may argue that the Osmanlis misplaced not on the battlefield however on the monetary entrance—a declare supported by the truth that Türkiye was by no means colonized militarily, however the Osmanlis misplaced the monetary struggle in opposition to the West.
The monopolization of the economic system by way of management of the cash provide is as central to the nation-state because the monopolization of violence. Along with the aim of the social group, these parts create a social paradigm essentially completely different from that of the Osmanlis.
At the moment’s Syrian authorities is trying to construct a centralized nation-state, however Wadah Khanfar argues that this idea stays alien to the Arab world. One may communicate of an Arab nation, however that will embody not less than 20 present states. In accordance with him, this very idea—imported from the West and imposed by the French and British—has fueled the turmoil that now engulfs the Center East.
A quick phrase concerning the present authorities of Syria, as many readers might be frowning. Many Western commentators, each from the mainstream and different media, insist on calling Al-Sharaa and his troop a “bloodthirsty jihadi terrorist” one. I’ve no sympathies for them nor their ideology. Nonetheless, what’s terrorism and who’s a terrorist? Who will get to label others as terrorists? Who’s a jihadist and why?
No query that Al-Sharaa, earlier than often known as Al-Jolani, and his folks may need dedicated crimes in Syria. However so did Hafez and Bashar al-Assad—and far worse—and so have the Shia militias, and so has the US and the West, on a scale far larger than all of them collectively. I’ll refer to 2 Syrian commentators, Alexander McKeever and Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, who, being within the area and never significantly inclined in direction of Al-Sharaa, keep away from utilizing these labels and have a way more balanced and nuanced understanding.
What is clear is that neither Syria nor the remainder of the Center East can return to a political organizational system that now not exists. What’s much less apparent is whether or not they need to transfer ahead towards the nation-state mannequin—a system that has neither introduced peace nor prosperity to the area and which itself reveals indicators of exhaustion at its roots.
