As bloody crises often ravage our countries, we find ourselves confronted with a bitter truth: our homelands are deeply wounded and lie atop wells of fear. People often tend to paint a rosy picture of their beloved countries. This love of country can leave us susceptible to denial. A tendency shared by authorities, for acknowledging the depth of these fears would leave them decision-makers with a daunting task that demands a profound reassessment of basic assumptions and frameworks.
Experience shows that maintaining peaceful coexistence within a pluralistic society is not easy. Accepting the right of the “other” with whom one shares a roof is challenging. Recognizing their right to difference entails making concessions and building bridges. It means listening intently to the concerns of the other side that lead them to seek reassurance from weapons or armed factions that claim to represent their community. Transitioning from the era of factions to that of an era of statehood is not a straightforward process. A set of political, economic, and cultural conditions must be met. One cannot impose cultural uniformity in a pluralistic society with communities that have different world views, read different books, and constantly worry about demographics and their share of power.
Many nations have never been given a chance to draw their maps with their own ink. Numerous borders were drawn with the ink of great powers seeking to divide territories into spheres of influence. Various communities would prefer a smaller or larger map. Experience shows that changing maps is always extremely dangerous. Authoritarian rule is not a solution; it could suppress the voices of certain segments of society, but it aggravates the tensions simmering beneath the surface and pushes the suppressed community to seize any opportunity to express themselves.
The bloody clashes in Suwayda have alarmed Syrian citizens. Many fear that the violence might severely undermine the effort to reclaim the state, especially since these clashes broke out following the harrowing events on the coast and the looming threat of a violent struggle against the Kurds. These clashes have also worried Syria’s neighbors and all the countries concerned, although they believe that President Ahmad al-Shara’s approach would create an opportunity to steer Syria toward stability and a pursuit of prosperity.
These apprehensions are valid. The collapse of the Syrian social contract would have dire consequences, not only for Syria and its neighbors, but potentially for the entire world. A stable and moderate Syria would constitute a bulwark against extremism and terrorism. It is in support of this vision for Syria that Arab and international actors have backed President Sharaa.
Compounding both domestic and global fears, Israel launched an assault on the symbols of Syria’s sovereignty in Damascus, under the pretext of protecting the Druze and imposing the demilitarization of southern Syria. Some believe that Israel is deeply troubled by the broad support that Sharaa enjoys, and that it seeks a weakened Syria with no center of gravity. Moreover, the emergence of a stable, moderate Syria would reinforce its rightful claim to the Golan Heights.
It is not surprising that the new Syria is facing severe challenges. The legacy it has inherited is more than a heavy burden. For decades, Syria was not a normal state, not even a quasi-normal state. It was ruled by a strongman who ran the country through intelligence services that overwhelmed both the party and the government. No community could voice its demands or fears, as doing so would expose them to merciless repression. Beneath the fears of speaking out and dissenting, resentment quietly grew and awaited its moment.
Since the winds of the “Arab Spring” swept through the regime of Assad junior, Syria has, in effect, been stateless. The country was brimming with bloodshed, barrel bombs, and militias. Millions of Syrians fled their homeland, and those who remained suffered immensely, enduring economic collapse, poverty, and the scarcity of basic needs.
Sharaa’s government was never expected to achieve milestones that demand difficult decisions and capacities it does not yet possess. It appeared to be making its way forward amid competing visions for the future, even among those who had helped topple Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Sharaa had to navigate this transition, and his moderate turn was neither easy nor costless.
I asked a man whose job demands that he follow events in Syria closely, and he said something worth reflecting on. He told me that “the current situation in Syria is more the result of the regime’s collapse than from the opposition’s victory. The collapse of the Syrian army in Aleppo and other areas is reminiscent of the Iraqi army’s collapse in Mosul. The opposition moved on Aleppo to break the deadlock and send a message to Assad, compelling him to negotiate. The attackers were surprised by the Syrian army’s collapse and its refusal to fight.”
He added, “Even Sharaa himself didn’t think the road to Damascus was open. The Turks did not expect Assad to fall either. Assad could have cut his losses if he had uttered the one phrase that was expected of him: ‘I will meet with Erdogan.’ Had he said that, Türkiye would not have encouraged Sharaa to march toward Damascus. Instead, Assad called Erdogan a liar- a man who is not to be trusted and is seeking to exploit the summit for domestic political gain. That phrase killed the Assad regime.”
After the ceasefire was announced in Suwayda, the US envoy called on all to “lay down their arms.” In truth, transitioning from the rule of factions to the rule of law is a pressing need for Syria. Syria’s path forward is to become a normal state: a state of citizenship and institutions that consolidates national unity, fosters equality among citizens, and engages in deep national dialogue that leads to a legal framework for ensuring respect for difference.
