23 May 2011

Federalism: a short proposal for our Future

No one knows what will come after Assad. Maybe, civil war and massacres; maybe, peace and prosperity and a democratic future. Personally, I’m hoping for the second option and, because I am, I want to make a suggestion for what things could look like on the other side.

Ours has never been a homogeneous society. Those who fear the future know that and suggest that that will be a source of future woes. They claim that, once the iron hand is loosened from our necks, we’ll disintegrate into sectarian civil war.

I don’t think so. Instead, our diversity is itself our strength and rather than being scared of it or trying to stifle it, we should see our diversity as the way out of this mess.

After the fall of the Ottoman state, we had the supreme misfortune to be colonized by France. As everyone knows, they left us a legacy of partition and of their attempts to divide and rule.

But they also left another insidious legacy and one that merged with other imported ideas of nationalism that demanded that unity and centralization were the only way. We didn’t wish to be divided further and, so, we embraced those legacies of France that gave all power to the center, made a strong presidency and so on.

But that has caused far more problems than it solves. It leaves every minority religion, ethnicity, and opinion fearful of a majority against them, afraid of being merged into the whole. And, looking to the French, one cannot help but see a state too centralized, where Paris was everything and Occitans, Flemings, Provencals, Basques, Corsicans, Bretons, Alsatians, Huguenots, Cathars and so on all were made to follow Parisian fashion. Why would we want to emulate that?

Instead, we need to think wisely. Ours is not a homogeneous country though there is a majority culture; yes, by numbers, Arabic speaking Sunni Muslims are the majority but we are not the whole. There are whole sections where Arabic is learned only in school, others where other faiths dominate the communities. And that is something to embrace and a way out of the impasse.

If we are to peacefully transition to a democratic future, the greatest problem we face is that of assuring that minority rights will not be trampled by the mere counting of the group with the most snouts. We need to make sure that the idea of a new Syria without this regime is not too frightening for those communities that the regime has tried to frighten with the bloody shirt of sectarianism. We need – no, we must – convince the ‘average Ali’ in the Alawite hills that, when the regime goes, they, too, will gain freedom and be secure.

And, too, we must make clear to the Kurdish communities that we will not simply replace an authoritarian Arab nationalist regime that stomps on Kurdish dreams with a democratic version.

So, here is my suggestion:


Let us have a federal Syria. There are fourteen provinces in our bilad; let us make them stronger. Instead of governors appointed from Damascus, let’s have governors elected locally; local provincial assemblies that will have powers to raise some taxes, to make local laws, to do local policing, to build up their own regions.

And we will, I believe, see a varied Syria that will be a stronger Syria: in Hassake province, for instance, schools may instruct in Kurmanji and signs be bilingual; in Sweida, the Druze will be more self governing. And in Latakia, Alawis will run their own affairs. If one province chooses to restrict alcohol sales, for instance, because its population has chosen that, another one, say Latakia, may choose very different rules. And so on down the line …. But we’ll also have a common citizenship and common society; if someone wants to move from the banks of the Euphrates to the Mediterranean coast, that will be their choice.

When we draw up a new constitution, the powers of the provinces should be clear and the consent of the provinces to the constitution and to any changes will be needed. We’ll have mechanisms placed in so that central government will not be able to dictate policies to the provinces and vice versa. We’ll study closely how federalism has worked for German Lander, American and Australian states, Canadian and Indian provinces and so on.

And, should our federalism succeed, it will also help us become a shining light to draw back the lost and partitioned lands: a Syria where minorities prosper and both they and majorities enjoy full democratic freedom will make the partitions of last century look like a bad idea to more and more.

It is, in my opinion, the best way to achieve all of our dreams.

5 comments:

Samira said...

As a member of a Damascus Christian family, I agree with you, Sister x

Morgul06 said...

"But that has caused far more problems than it solves. It leaves every minority religion, ethnicity, and opinion fearful of a majority against them, afraid of being merged into the whole. And, looking to the French, one cannot help but see a state too centralized, where Paris was everything and Occitans, Flemings, Provencals, Basques, Corsicans, Bretons, Alsatians, Huguenots, Cathars and so on all were made to follow Parisian fashion. Why would we want to emulate that?"

Hem, I hope my English is understandable, but it's more complicate, and the unitary state is not seen as a problem by the majority of the minorites you mention (I never live in Paris, and I'm protestant) ; this is a model that favors equal rights, all French people must have the same right and duties, in all the France and what religion they are. It's the principle, a central authority who have to be neutral, for all people.

The federal State, it's another point of view : like you say, give a different legal order according to a territorial division allow for the minorities to create their own rules.

In the first model, the idea of equal rights is privileged, a neutral State above the peculiarities of all regions and religions ; in the second, the idea of different legal systems to protect the peculiarities of all regions, peoples or religions.

As I said, in France, the model of unitary state is not a problem, it became a habit to differentiate the interests of all the nation and the rest in public law ; maybe it's because of an old habit of religious wars, we don't like to see the State make difference, territorial, ethnic or religious. This is not the current government policy, moreover, that I consider xenophobic, but this is not the subject. However, if there is in Syria dissension that make this modele unsuitable because of fears to see a state that would benefit only a portion of the population, yes, maybe federalism is the best solution for Syria, and then, this legacy of colonialism should not be kept blindly.

The most important thing for a state fair, whatever form it takes, must be that no one was disadvantaged in his rights.

Micah said...

The more diversified a nation, the more likely that nation will sustain democratic principles.

Your remarks re the Kurds are most telling. By integrating minority populations into fully equal and participating citizens, Syria's opportunity to succeed will be less of a risk and more of a probability.

Veganovich said...

Federalism would be helpful but it does not solve everything. There is sufficient integration in Syria so that the individual provinces do not have homogeneous populations. Thus federalism would still leave a situation in which many people will be a minority within the governmental system where they reside. Federalism merely moves the problem from the national to the provincial level.

To ensure that minority groups are protected, what is needed is a respect for INDIVIDUAL rights rather than MINORITY rights. Minorities do best when the government allows for social and economic freedoms to individuals. When they do not, it does not really matter that much when the government limiting their freedom is on the provincial or national level.

smilton said...

Stability (in the UK) comes from a balance of power between the 3 main branches of government which are 'parliament', the 'judiciary' and 'the police' (plus a 'free press' making a forth force), each acting independently under a framework of 'law' that is exercised equally for all citizens, no matter how great, rich or powerful they might be.
Equality under the law is the hardest thing to embed and defend.

Post a Comment