“The revolutionaries are those who know when power is lying in the street and when they can pick it up. Armed uprising by itself has never yet led to revolution.”
These words by Hannah Arendt seem to sum up the events of the past weeks. After decades of armed conflicts, change came once the regime was normalised again. Swiftly, and in less than a week, the dictator was gone.
The scenes of jubilant Syrians are understandable. The Assad dynasty ruled Syria since 1971 as a totalitarian police state where torture and beatings were not uncommon.
Political prisoners were beaten regularly, given electric shocks, and drowned in toilet water. “Coffin cells” kept prisoners alive – barely – before they were interrogated. These are the stories of those who survived to tell the tale. Others were not so fortunate.
The looting of the infamous Sednaya “human slaughterhouse” sent shockwaves around the world. Since the start of the war, around 300,000 people are believed to have been killed, and another 130,000 remained missing after entering the prison system.
The thirst for vengeance is real. In a neighbourhood in Damascus, rumours were circulating about the execution of a key perpetrator of the 2013 Tadamon massacre, where civilians were blindfolded, handcuffed, shot and then had their bodies set on fire with burning tyres. Twelve children were among the 288 victims.
No one can negate that Syria suffered tremendously under Bashar al-Assad.
The tall, unassuming, awkward, western-educated ophthalmologist-turned-dictator was not destined for power.
Hafez al-Assad was thought to want to transfer power to his brother Rifaat – the commanding officer of the 1982 Hama Massacre. An attempted coup d’
etat put a damper on that. Next in line was his son, Bassel al-Assad, whose life was cut short in an automobile incident.
Some in the regime opposed dynastic succession, yet Hafez al-Assad got his way. At his death in the year 2000, the age limit for the Syrian presidency was lowered from 40 to 34 – thus allowing Bashar al-Assad to succeed his father.
The paradoxical posturing of his regime allowed it to retain an influence that exceeded its economic and military power.
Syria’s fiercely secular government continued to build alliances with unlikely allies: Iran and Hezbollah. It also provided a safe haven for Kurdish PKK separatists while denying Syrian Kurds full citizenship. Its continued support for the Palestinian cause and the denunciation of human rights abuses by Israel were not met by a similar commitment on the home front. Indeed, its secret police were known for their brutality in crushing dissent.
Fear that the situation might spiral out of control and lead to a failed state- André DeBattista
Yet, there were some pockets of support. Minorities such as the Alawites (the minority from which the Assads hail) and the Christians were muted in their condemnation of the regime, fearing that the alternative may not be as tolerant. Moreover, the international community has seemingly been more open to normalising the Assad regime despite the documented atrocities since the start of the crisis in 2011.
While the reactions to the collapse of the regime were justified, there is now a need for more restraint and caution from the international community. A reassessment of the situation paints a pained picture.
According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between November 27 and December 12, 2024, 1.1 million Syrians were displaced. The vast majority are women and children.
Fears of increased factional fighting abound. Clashes between the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces and the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army have been reported. Islamic State has also clashed in some areas with members of the Syrian Democratic Forces.
There are also clear indications that several powers have a stake in what takes place in Syria. Turkey remains fearful of Kurdish armed groups and their potential to destabilise their country. Iran has blamed the US and Israel for the fall of Bashar al-Assad, while Israel has levelled that charge at Iran. Russia, while downplaying its role and claiming that its focus is on war in Ukraine, seems to have given asylum to the Assad family. Qatar has announced its intention to reopen its embassy in Damascus. Israel has already stationed forces on the annexed Golan Heights and Mount Hermon, increasing fears of a prolonged Israel presence in Syria.
Such manoeuvres could jeopardise a peaceful transition to a stable Syria. As things stand, it is too early to tell whether optimism – beyond that brought about by the ousting of the dictator – is warranted.
Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group, has pledged justice and sought to reassure minorities that he will also guarantee their rights. He has also called for Syrians to return to Syria to help in the rebuilding of the country. Yet his group remains on the UN’s list of terrorist organisations.
As head of a transitory government, he faces innumerable challenges. Firstly, it would be wrong to assume that the entire territory is under control. Indeed, while key cities have been captured and the regime has collapsed, other parts of the country face continuous clashes.
The first test of this new administration will be the treatment of the Alawite community as well as other minorities. The various groups and ethnicities in Syria would need to feel sufficiently represented for a functioning polity to emerge.
Yet, a more immediate concern is whether some actors could step back and allow Syria to transition into a functioning regional player. This does not seem to be the case, perhaps due to a fear that the situation might spiral out of control and lead to a failed state.
Perhaps the last few days have shown that caution rather than unbridled enthusiasm is more appropriate.
André DeBattista is an international relations academic.