Sign up for more from Diwan
If you enjoyed reading this, subscribe for more!
عربي
The Arrogance of Power
NAEL SHAMA
Why was Bashar al-Assad so unprepared for the Syrian uprising, and has he learned anything since?
April 15, 2021
عربيComments (6)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad appears to have triumphed. He remains in power, the Syrian conflict is nearly over, and efforts are underway in the Arab world to normalize relations with his regime. Yet, while the level of violence may have gone down after ten years of destruction, can one say that Assad has changed his method of ruling? Has Syria’s experience altered his views about the essence of politics?
To answer those questions, we must recall what happened at the beginning of the Arab uprisings. In early 2011, even after massive social mobilization had overthrown two longstanding strongmen in the span of a few weeks, Assad stated that those events had no relevance for Syria. He told the Wall Street Journal that “Syria was stable.” Referring to what had happened in Tunisia and Egypt, the president remarked that his country was “outside of this.”
A few weeks later, Assad was facing an uprising of his own, revealing how out of touch with reality he had been. A decade on, it is still legitimate to ask why the Syrian dictator overlooked the harbingers of his own vulnerability. Three mechanisms explain this disconnect.
The first was that the Assad family was myopic about the fact that excessive control reduced its exposure to the true workings of Syrian society, hindering its foresight. Politics is a dynamic process that involves expression, negotiation, and conflict. By 2011, the Assad regime had imposed a tight and elaborate system of control for over four decades, with tentacles throughout society. In having tightened its grip on power structures, security agencies, political parties, and public space, the regime had placed nearly all visible aspects of politics under its stringent authority.
The problem with this is that the Assads failed to realize that by placing politics in a straightjacket, they pushed it into murkier recesses, so that political opinion and contestation shifted from party politics, parliamentary debates, and media outlets into private conversations and subtle forms of dissent. Small facts speak to large issues—“winks to epistemology or sheep raids to revolution,” as the cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz once wrote. Under the Assads, ellipses of speech, allegorical phrases, nods of desperation, exhalations of anger, or even silence, spoke volumes about what was rankling the population.
From his palace overlooking Damascus, Bashar al-Assad saw a different picture. Silence implied loyalty, self-censorship consent. The uprising in March 2011 showed how deeply he had misread reality.
A second mechanism also explained why Assad had failed to grasp the mood in his country. Not only had Syrians concealed their true preferences in response to political pressures, they also feigned many of their reactions and support for the regime. Economist Timur Kuran has called this “preference falsification.” Privately, this may mean faking a smile or compliment in a social gathering. Under authoritarian regimes, however, the practice is more consequential.
It is telling that for both those who supported the Assads and their critics, fear was the Syrian regime’s trademark. While critics called it a “republic of fear,” the regime was fond of upholding the notion of “the prestige of the state,” or haybat al-dawla, albeit blended with awe and dread. Between 1970 and 2011, the politics of terror had been institutionalized in Syria. As a consequence, people acquired a knack for survival. They would bend with the wind, withdraw into their shells, go into mental exile, or simulate devotion.
An astute poet from the early Islamic era, Abu al-Atahiya, stated it well: “If life narrows on you, silence is wider.” And so a spiral of silence pervaded Syria before 2011. Yet, silence is more often a mark of patience than a sign of fidelity. Nor, because it represents a burden for individuals, does it last eternally.
Rather than reading between the lines of silence, the Assad regime had been busy constructing a personality cult around its leader and craving eternal rule: “Assad forever,” or “Al-Assad ila al-abad,” was its favorite slogan. However, it took no great insight to see that sycophancy had bred arrogance.
Third, time widens the disparity between reality and fantasy. The Assad regime suffered from its longevity, so that time had effectively encaged it. Often, the longer an autocrat stays in power, the greater his propensity to rely on a small coterie of confidants who share his opinions and delusions. The leader’s inner sanctum limits his exposure, so that reality becomes “like a night in which all cows are black,” as the German philosopher Hegel put it.
By early 2011, the Assads, Hafez and Bashar, had spent 40 years in an ivory tower. A former advisor to Bashar observed that the president “lives in a cocoon.” In fact, Bashar was probably never fully aware of the inner workings of his own state organs, particularly the unbridled security agencies. Becoming a family heirloom had turned Syria into a compartmentalized dictatorship in which personal fiefdoms had proliferated and public institutions had been emptied of all relevance.
The Syrian uprising took the dictator by surprise, stripped him of his aura, and demonstrated that politics could not be eliminated or forever buried. If the regime repeats its mistakes after the uprising’s conclusion, then the dark events of the past decade will surely reappear again.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More on: SYRIA
COMMENTS​(6)
Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name
Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.
Email Address
Characters Used 0
SORT BY:
DATE POSTED​RECOMMENDED
fatma melek
April 15, 2021
4:32 pm
The Middle East seems to have an endless capacity to produce autocratic leaders.. is this the heritage of the fallen Ottoman empire? I always wonder why there is this craving among the people to look up at a strong and powerful leader, no matter how heavy a burden it may bring to them. Lack of self esteem or coming from a past of military dominance?
REPORTRECOMMEND
REPLY TO THIS POST
Rob Pianka
May 27, 20211:40 pm
Interesting question to ponder. I tend to think that the family/clan/tribal loyalties that many people in the Middle East have are not compatible with the Nation-States that replaced the Ottoman empire. It's hard enough to provide a democratic counterweight to Power in a Nation-State when the people are united as citizens, when the people are "pre-factionalized" politics becomes a game of "King of the Mountain." I miss the Austro-Hungarian Empire for the same reason.
REPORTRECOMMEND
TRM
April 15, 2021
4:49 pm
Don't hold your breath waiting for another uprising any time soon. The last time the Assads killed their way out of a rebellion (early 1980s) it bought them 30 years of quiet.
REPORTRECOMMEND
REPLY TO THIS POST
andreas
April 23, 2021
6:54 pm
Three important points should be added: 1. The Assad family belong to the Alawite sect, a truly heterodox form of Islam. At least some of the rebels were Islamists and their target was to topple the Alawite rule. 2. The drought in Syria forced about a million farmers into the cities and those desperate people were an important part of the uprising. 3. Syria was the country where the Christians felt free and comfortable.
REPORTRECOMMEND
REPLY TO THIS POST
NotAchance
May 05, 20215:00 pm
Another Bashar apologist. None of those things have any relevance for why millions of people revolted.
REPORTRECOMMEND
Rob Pianka
May 03, 2021
10:55 am
Has he learned anything...about governance? Or did he hang on for the sake of hanging on? I'm still trying to digest this from a Feb. 23, 2021 article in the NYTimes by Ben Hubbard and Hwaida Saad, "In a private meeting with pro-government journalists, President Bashar al-Assad was asked about Syria’s economic meltdown: the currency collapse that has gutted salaries, the skyrocketing prices for basic goods and the chronic shortages of fuel and bread. “I know,” he said, according to two people with knowledge of the discussion. “I know.” But he offered no concrete steps to stem the crisis beyond floating this idea: Television channels should cancel cooking shows so as not to taunt Syrians with images of unattainable food.
REPORTRECOMMEND
REPLY TO THIS POST
Comment Policy
RECENT ANALYSIS FROM DIWAN
Building on Lebanon’s Ruins
June 15, 2021
Chronicle of a Flawed Accord Foretold?
June 14, 2021
We Want to Break Free
June 10, 2021
Iran Uninterrupted
June 08, 2021
Instability in the Sultanate
June 03, 2021
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
Sign up to receive Diwan in your inbox!
DOWNLOAD THE APP
Stay connected to Diwan wtih the smartphone app for Android and iOS devices
FOLLOW US
Stay connected to Diwan on social media
Twitter
Facebook
@CarnegieMEC
@CarnegieMEC
CONNECT WITH US
PRIVACY STATEMENT
CONTACT & FEEDBACK
SUPPORT CARNEGIE
Emir Bechir Street, Lazarieh Tower
Bldg. No. 2026 1210, 5th flr.
Downtown Beirut, P.O.Box 11-1061
Riad El Solh, Lebanon
Phone
+961 1 99 15 91
Fax
+961 1 99 15 91
Contact By Email
© 2021 All Rights Reserved
By using this website, you agree to our cookie policy.
Share this selection
Tweet
Facebook