Towards Liberty for Syria: An Alternative Charter[1]
“…and say: surely, this is my path…”
A political actor is free if he is able to
determine his own trajectory in expression of a divine will, but servile
if he is to choose between two fixed “realities” created by a false
dichotomy appearing as natural. The intellectually feeble, whose minds
have been neutralized and stripped of its ability to think critically,
cannot think outside the box and cannot transcend these dichotomies and,
in turn, regressively produce and reproduce these false-realities which
have impeded our emancipation. Ironically, those who cry and warn of
conspiracy and imperial plots are the very same people who fall into
this colonially and imperially constructed mentality of dependence.
An example of such is the dichotomy created around the Syrian revolution. Our trajectory is either the Despotism of Assad or American
Imperialism. A debate then circulates about which of the two is the
lesser of evils or the pros and cons surrounding both. On one hand, the
Baathist regime preserves the local resistance and acts as a
counter-hegemony to American influence in the region. Choosing the
latter would only further proliferate the U.S-Israeli influence in the
region and most probably suffocate the so-called resistance in Lebanon.
Those who opt for American Imperialism are more concerned with the
immediate results following the daily killings and rising death toll.
Speed and violence debilitate objectivity and hence “long-term” goals
are put aside amidst the chaos and crisis ensuing during the revolution.
A choice between the two has created much confusion and has acted as
the point of departure for many debates, analyses, and conclusions based
falsely on this illusionary scenario which is part and parcel of a
colonial schema. There is indeed a third way which becomes apparent when
one transcends this schema and deconstructs the Assad/America
dichotomy. At this point, we are better able to determine and shape our
trajectory, both during and after the revolution, and determine a third way.
First step to liberation is the acknowledgement of an alternative third way.
Assad and Resistance
Resistance and anti-imperialism are in fact two key constitutive and
determining features of the intellectual foundations of the Baathist
regime. Historically, pan-Arabist have appealed to their constituencies
through espousing an anti-Western/Imperialist discourse while frequently
warning of the Western conspiracy against the “Arabs”. Considering the
romanticism, ambiguity, and weakness of pan-Arabism, such regimes have
relied heavily on pointing out the counter-hegemonic nature of the state
whose presence was in itself a defiance to the Colonial West. In
reality, however, the Baathist regime in Syria is far from being a
counter-hegemony to the United States or Israel. It has yet to challenge
the Israeli occupation of Golan Heights; as a matter of fact, it signed
a peace treaty with Israel in 1974 – a year after the occupation – and
went on to hand over Hemron to the Israel shortly after. A peace
conference in Madrid in the early 90’s consolidated ties between the two
countries which remain strong.
The U.S and the ‘New’ Middle East
An opportunistic West maintains its power and hegemony through the
subordination both politically and economically of peripheral states,
amongst which is Syria. One of the ways in which it does so is through
native elites and local proxies which represent and maintain the
interests of the neo-colonial powers abroad by preserving the
status-quo. Following the changes brought about by the Arab Spring, the
U.S has begun to search frantically for a proxy or local elite in Syria
by which it can control the transition Syria will embark upon following
the inevitable collapse of Assad. The Middle East Transition Office
established in Egypt, headed by William Taylor to oversee the
“democratic transitions” in the Arab world, is an example of such. Such a
transition would secure that a peripheral Syrian state remains
subordinated to the Core states and remains within a neo-colonial
hierarchy of power, and more importantly it must remain defined and
limited to its colonially constructed identities. Colonialism in the
Middle East, unlike that of Africa, was not so centered on the
exportation of surplus, production of raw material, and cheap labor, but
rather the providing of security to the colonial core. Syria’s Assad
dynasty has provided this security and has excelled in doing so.
Suppressing the uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982, repressive
anti-terrorism policies, and a 1973 treaty with Israel all reassure the
West that Assad is basically doing his job. Providing this security has
largely involved the creation of major military-security apparatuses and
subsequently an Authoritarian regime. It is no surprise then that the
West has supported and strengthened the iron fisted and robust Arab
regimes despite their being anti-democratic.
Surely, a population which questions the colonialists’ concepts and
‘natural’ categories is a nation which has liberated its conscious and
becomes a major threat. This helps explain the hesitance of the Western
states to carry out military intervention against Assad—because the
secular and heavily fragmented “Syrian National Council” (a group of
exiled Syrian intellectuals), which claims to represent the opposition,
is largely detached from the actual body of opposition and hence its
representation is nominal. A recent charter released by the Syrian
Muslim Brotherhood however, quite explicitly, reassures the U.S that
Syria will remain indeed a security-providing state by cracking down on
“terrorism”, respecting international norms, and of course maintaining
the economic dependence of the peripheral state – Syria – on the core
states through subordination to the transgressive economic treaties and
neo-Liberal norms.
An Islamic Alternative for Syria – The Third Way
Political Independence: Beyond the Nation-State:
An independent and autonomous political programme of action whose vision falls nothing short of complete political
and economic independence is one which is principled in that it is
based on its own distinct political principles and henceforth has its
own criteria for legitimacy. An appeal to supposedly universal
‘democratic’ norms or narratives would contribute little to developing a
programme of action and have little substance, and only increase the
ambiguity. Those unaffected by the illusions created by the
reality-defining institutions like the media and academia know clearly
that in an emerging multi-polar world and amidst the failure of
pan-Arabism, only Islam stands as a political alternative for the Arab
world.
Cosmic Grounds for Legitimacy:
Assad’s supposed support for resistance, and the so-called conspiracies
against Syria have no weight on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the
regime from an Islamic normative perspective as Islam’s liberating
vision for society and man. The regime lost its legitimacy through its
monopolization of legislative authority (an expression of power) which
subordinates one segment of society to another while legislative
authority belongs only to Allah ‘azza wa Jal. In other words, the Baathist regime has transgressed the greatest right of man (freedom) and of Allah ta’ ala (sole
right to legislate). Arguments about resistance and conspiracy are
dismissed when priority is given to the freedom and liberty of man. Not
to mention, the nature of the resistance being supported is also called
into question, for in Islam, the only legitimate resistance is one whose
end-goal involves the lofty act of emancipation from all forms of
man-made servitude. So-called resistance groups like Hezbollah have
abandoned their revolutionary origins, have exposed themselves as
being by no means a resistance movement, but merely an Iranian militia
with ulterior motives. Hamas on the other hand have been described by
Assad as “uninvited guests” and pulled members out of Damascus while
formally declaring support for the revolution.
A Liberating Political System:[2]
Decades of repression have naturally produced calls for free elections
and accountability. Those with reductive and servile understanding of
political systems reflexively attribute and associate the above
procedures and conditions to Democracy. However, elections, and
accountability are procedural and neutral mechanisms which are not, and
have never been exclusive to Democracy. What is important however is
the political system and the location of power within the model of
governance through which mechanisms like elections would be utilized.
Democracy, as with all non-Islamic systems of governance, allocates absolute power to a particular temporal being—majority—hence, the fetishization of
power and the subordination of man to man through various instruments
of governance amongst which is legislative power (assuming of course
that Democracy, in its practical manifestation, actually circulates
power with the majority and not a particular ruling elite or class which
is able to produce and re-produce popular opinion and control the
‘majority’ through the monopoly over instruments of rule). Islam, at the
heart of which is Tawhid, provides an alternative system of
governance which is radically different than that of all non-Islamic
models. Absolute Power is ontologically transcendent and belongs solely
to Allah ‘azza wa Jal—the will of whom is expressed through
revelation. Relative Power however is delegated to the Muslim community
which appoints an executive head to (1) execute the legislative and
administrative dimensions of revelation as found in the Qur’an and Sunnah and
(2) the will of the Muslim community by administrating its affairs. Two
mechanisms however are fixated at the core of the Islamic mode of
governance: Shuraa (consultation) and Bay’a (allegiance). Shura,
unlike elections in the Liberal West, dictate both the pre-appointment
and post-appointment consultation of the head of state with the
community, while Liberal-Democracy creates the illusion of
‘participation’ through periodical elections and the illusion of choice
between two parties both of whom are subordinate to the economic powers
. Shuraa is a continuous and communal mechanism of participation.
Dismantling Israel:
Although inextricable from one another, both a principled and strategic
analysis of the situation in Syria point towards the inevitability of an
Islamic alternative, one whose strategic implications would change the
shape of the region due to the geopolitical advantages Syria would have
on surrounding ’nations’, whose Islamic movements would then have strong
politico-economic bordering entity into which they can dissolve.
Similarly, a more practical and realistic solution to the illegitimate
and domineering presence of the Israeli state emerges as a supplement
to the localized resistance from Gaza, for surely a powerful political
and economic entity in the region which does not submit to the defeatist
international norms would become a real and major threat to Israel. A
war against Israel or any other regional forces also becomes symmetrical
and no longer impeded by structural constraints and weaknesses.
Minorities:
Religious and confessional diversity in Syria necessitates an Islamic
polity as an alternative to the conflict-generating nation-state.
Ironically, the call for a democratic nation in order to address the
religious diversity in Syria paradoxically instantiates the problem. An
artificial ‘national’ identity which must be constantly constructed and
re-constructed and subsequently legitimized has been the source of
internal conflict since the inception of the nation-state. And a
‘majority rule’ as dictated by Democracy necessitates a ‘minority’ which
is subordinate to both the ‘majority’ and an artificial identity
super-imposed at the expense of preexisting cultures and traditions.
Islam however provides a mode of governance which does not monopolize
identity but rather grants administrative, judicial, and legal autonomy
to the various confessions and faiths existing within its jurisdiction.
Towards a Radical Departure:
An Arab Spring has broken the first amongst few major psychological impediments for the reemergence of theKhilafah. An
Islamic programme in Syria would break the first and perhaps only
structural and political impediment left in our way. An Islamic
alternative would provide us with a radical departure with our
colonial and servile past and will prove to be a radical alternative to
the Assad/America dichotomy which in reality are two sides of the same
coin.
”…and such are the days…”
Ali Harfouch is a student of Political Studies at the American University of Beirut working in Islamic activism with Islam Policy.
[1] The
following short paper is a response to the charter produced and
released by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood calling for a ‘Civil
Democratic’ state after the fall of Bashar al-Assad and his regime.
While writing this however our brothers in Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain produced ‘The Islamic Khilfah: A Manifesto for Change’ which articulately and concisely details an alternative political programme for the Post-Arab Spring world.
[2] The Political System in Islam by
Taqi ad-Din an-Nabahani The Principles of State and Government in
Islam by Muhammad Assad Al-Hurriya aw at-Tuwfaan by Dr. Hakim al-Mutairi
No comments:
Post a Comment