Syria’s transition following the fall of the Baath regime faces comparisons to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, each presenting lessons in governance and the risks of sectarianism. Key points include efforts to unify military factions, the importance of Turkish support for Syrian unity, and the necessity for a centralized government to ensure stability and inclusion. The Syrian context favors an administrative system based on equal citizenship, moving away from ethnic quotas.
The recent overthrow of the Baath regime in Syria marked the beginning of a new political chapter. After the capture of Damascus by the opposition group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), discussions regarding the future governance of Syria have intensified. While some posit that the oppressive regime is no longer, others remain vigilant, calling attention to potential challenges that mirror the experiences of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon.
In drawing parallels to Afghanistan, one notes the fragmentation after the Soviet withdrawal that led to a power struggle among various factions, culminating in the Taliban’s resurgence following the U.S. invasion. However, unlike the Afghan experience, recent Syrian developments suggest the establishment of a more unified command. The new leadership aims to consolidate military factions under a single Defense Ministry, encouraging defectors from Assad’s regime to join rather than perpetuating violence or division among armed groups.
Considering the Iraqi context, the aftermath of the U.S. invasion left Iraq fragmented along ethnic lines, creating a tenuous governmental structure dominated by sectarianism and foreign influence. In contrast, Syria’s recent regime change was spearheaded by internal forces, not external powers, allowing for a potentially more cohesive national identity. Furthermore, Turkey, a key supporter of the Syrian opposition, advocates for Syria’s territorial unity and an inclusive governance approach without adhering to sectarian divides.
Lebanon’s governance model, which allocates positions based on sectarian lines, serves as a cautionary tale for Syria. The Lebanese system has struggled to maintain stability due to demographic shifts that have rendered it ineffective. The Syrian context, marked by a history of coexistence among various ethnic and religious groups, suggests a preference for a centralized governance structure, avoiding the pitfalls of sect-based political representation.
Establishment of a central government in Syria stands as the most favorable scenario moving forward. A political framework emphasizing equal citizenship and unity, rather than division by ethnic or religious identity, is vital. The Syrian populace possesses a long tradition of harmony amongst its diverse groups. If the international community refrains from meddling, the Syrian people can formulate a governance system that reinforces national sovereignty and collective identity.
The political landscape in Syria has drastically shifted since the removal of the long-standing Baath regime. With ongoing discussions about the future governance structure, various scenarios drawn from the experiences of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon offer insights into potential pathways for Syria. These comparisons highlight the risks of fragmentation, sectarianism, and the importance of establishing an inclusive governance model that respects the diverse fabric of Syrian society.
In conclusion, Syria stands at a pivotal juncture with the potential to establish a unified, centralized government that promotes equal citizenship. The lessons learned from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon underline the importance of avoiding sectarian policies and fostering a cooperative national identity. The commitment of the new Syrian leadership to inclusivity and stability could chart a positive course for the nation’s future, provided that external influences are kept at bay.
Original Source: www.dailysabah.com
