Fall of Assad: Ba'ath utopia, fundamentalism illusions

Dr. Hani Nesira
Monday 30 Dec 2024

The fall of the Assad regime marked the end of the Ba'athist dream, a utopia that had once promised freedom, justice, and unity for the Arab world.

 

Founded in Syria in April 1947 by Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, and others, the Ba'ath Party's vision of liberation and national cohesion ultimately failed to materialize, as evidenced by the collapse of its Iraqi counterpart in 2003. This failure, however, symbolizes more than just the demise of Ba'athism; it signals the twilight of totalitarian ideologies in general — not merely in their Ba'athist form but in any exclusionary, ahistorical guise. A new era is emerging, one that prioritizes Syria and Syrians, aiming to revive the concept of the nation-state. This shift will be explored further in the following discussion.

On 8 December of this year, within just 10 days between the fall of Aleppo and Damascus, the Assad family's 53-year reign over Syria came to a swift and definitive end. This marked the birth of a new national era, one filled with hope that Syria might avoid its past mistakes and learn from its historical lessons. The collapse of the Assad regime also signifies a broader transformation in the regional and international landscape as Syria moves away from the Iranian axis, effectively marking the end of the Shiite crescent. Additionally, Russia's influence, already diminished by its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict since February 2022, has further waned.

The intellectual impact of this dramatic collapse is profound. The final death of Ba'athist thought does not merely signify the demise of its ideology but marks the revival of the nation-state as a legitimate and essential political framework. For years, both Ba'athists and extremist Islamists distorted the concept of the national homeland. However, there is a renewed emphasis on the legitimacy of tangible achievements over empty nationalist slogans that often threaten the nation’s stability. This shift underscores the importance of upholding citizens' rights and managing societal diversity without coercion, repression, or the imprisonment of dissent.

Historically, the Ba'athist slogans — promising freedom, justice, and unity — were the source of legitimacy for the Syrian and Iraqi regimes. Yet, their collapse has revealed the truth: there is no freedom or liberation through the policies of repression and subjugation and no unity without the strength and structure of the nation-state. The failure of Ba'athism has been proven not only through its unfulfilled promises but also through the internal strife among its leaders, the betrayals within its ranks, and the eventual rejection of its ideology by the Syrian and Iraqi citizens.

In the end, the Ba'ath Party never succeeded in uniting a nation, nor did it preserve the unity of any state. Instead, it fostered division, internally and externally. The Syrian Ba'ath aligned itself with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), deepening the rift within the Arab world. Furthermore, the regime exacerbated sectarian tensions, pitting Shiites against Sunnis in Iraq, and Sunnis against Shiites in Syria. It also intensified the oppression of Kurds and other minorities in both countries, further entrenching divisions within an already fractured region.

The Ba'ath Party's legacy is not one of unity but of division — a legacy that has now crumbled, leaving behind a nation searching for a new identity.

Since the 1950s, we have lived under an ideological discourse of nationalist supremacy that viewed the nation-state merely as a distorted creation of colonialism, a product of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. In this view, nationalists and Islamists found common ground. However, there has been a return to recognizing the truth and legitimacy of the nation and the nation-state, exposing and displacing the ideological myth of the imagined nation or the hopeful unifications that have often been placed above the people’s will.

The disgraceful flight of Bashar al-Assad and the fall of the Syrian Ba'ath regime, the last representative of the party, marked the collapse of the Ba'athist and religious utopias, as well as all other ahistorical utopias. Yet, this does not signify the end of Arabism or the Arabic language; instead, it reveals the truth and legitimacy of the nation-state as the foundation for any legitimacy or Arab cooperation within a pluralistic and integrated Arab system. Such a system views politics as managing diversity, not as a tool for oppression. It perceives history as a realistic course, which does not claim mastery over it as Saddam Hussein once asserted, nor seeks to overturn it, as Michel Aflaq and Zaki al-Arsuzi once cried out.

After the regime’s fall, it was natural to fear the possibility of division and factional conflict, as witnessed in many revolutions. However, this has not always been the case. Even so, the liberated discourse has shown itself to be consciously nationalistic, asserting that Syria comes first and that it must be inclusive of all Syrians. This message has been delivered domestically and abroad, accompanied by assurances and the pursuit of empowering the rule of law, criminalizing any actions outside its bounds. This approach remains pragmatic and flexible, as demonstrated by Ahmad al-Shara’s clear message to Iraq in particular, which the Iraqis understood when they refrained from violating Syria's sovereignty, as they had in the past.

The sun has set on the utopia of Ba'athism and its ilk. The nation has once again taken precedence over sectarian divisions internally and over external axes and the lust for conflict. The individual has been prioritized before any other, whether sectarian or external. Regardless of the fears, the solution and emphasis must forcefully return to the nation-state. The beginning and end lie in the homeland, in the self, not in the other or delusions.

Short link: