The fall of regimes and the reality of sectarian fighting in the Arab East: Where are we headed?

Christine Hanna Nasr

The aftermath of the Arab Spring has had repercussions, particularly on the regimes that fell, particularly in Iraq, and also in Syria, specifically after the fall of the ruling Baath regime, which was represented by the Baath Party and a single party. After the fall of the former Assad regime and the assumption of power during the transitional period by the new Syrian President, Ahmad al-Sharaa, we note an increase in the problems accumulated as a result of the Assad family’s rule, which lasted for more than 55 years. Here, we note that it is a regime that left a legacy of devastation in Syrian society, represented by ethnic and sectarian divisions, especially when Syrian society was divided into several sections, including a section supported by Iran and Hezbollah, which supports the ruling minority with its Alawite component, and the other section of the Syrian Sunni component supported by Turkey and represented by the Syrian National Army, which supported and armed the Syrian National Army. Unfortunately, this created a major rift between the two components in one country, especially in light of the exclusion of other components by the ruling component, which monopolized power and controlled the country’s resources at the expense of marginalizing other components.

Unfortunately, after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and until now, everyone expected that Syria would enter a new phase of state-building, i.e., the new Syria, and what I can call the best phase for healing old wounds after years of revolution, with the aim of reaching a new phase of building a pluralistic, democratic, secure and stable state. Unfortunately, the alternative, especially in this transitional phase of governance, was to enter the scene of the Syrian state, which can be described as difficult and crisis-ridden, i.e., the phase of division and sectarian fighting, the pace of which has increased day after day, until we began to see scenes of sectarian fighting that would explode and destroy the fabric of Syrian society, and dismantle the national unity between the components of the single state. For example, what happened in the sectarian fighting in the areas of the Syrian coast with an Alawite majority, which ruled Assad’s Syria, as well as the sectarian massacres in Tartus and Latakia, where we witnessed a state of clear rift and psychological, political and social destruction, and an increase in sectarian fighting and the spread of sectarian manifestations in the state. Unfortunately, it is undoubtedly a remnant of the defunct regime, as Syria is now entering a phase of fighting. Sectarianism, including a bloody reality between the components of a single nation, is based on differences in religion, belief, and ancient inherited blood feuds. These massacres, committed against the Alawite component on the Syrian coast, have clearly been characterized by collective revenge against the Alawite component associated with the defunct Assad regime.

Damascus and its suburbs also witnessed an outbreak of bloody clashes, specifically in the Druze-majority suburb of Jaramana, and the town of Ashrafieh Sahnaya, administratively affiliated with the Damascus countryside. The number of victims in these areas increased due to the manifestations of sectarian fighting and clashes. Unfortunately, the conflict now in Syria is not a military or political conflict, but rather an existential sectarian conflict, the predominant feature of which is the accusation of treason against the different other, and an increase in the psychology and motives for revenge and murder among the various components of the same homeland. Here we find that society, instead of being cohesive, is losing its cohesion, and the respect for pluralism in one country is fading. Peace and coexistence are also absent, and flimsy, empty pretexts are used for sectarian fighting. Unfortunately, all of this is a remnant of the defunct Assad regime, which played a role in deepening the principle of exclusion and discrimination between the various components of society, and the regime’s monopolization of exclusionary rule that brutalizes others.

Here we find that Syria is now embroiled in a conflict that has deepened the increasingly abhorrent sectarianism, rather than calming the situation for this Syrian society, already exhausted by the war, which has lasted for more than 14 years and has left the people financially, economically, socially, security-wise, and politically exhausted.

Unfortunately, one of the factors deepening sectarian strife is the presence of armed foreign militias coming from neighboring countries. It seems that their goal is to prevent the new transitional government from succeeding in establishing security, but rather to distract it from establishing security and stopping internal fighting, instead of devoting itself to building the new Syrian state. Therefore, the factions and foreign fighters must be removed from Syrian territory. Now in Syria, it is clear that there is no national reconciliation between the components of a single nation, as we are witnessing the concept of a narrow state, meaning the loss of the feeling of the principle of tolerance between its various ethnic components. The state must be a strong state with its various cohesive components, dominated by the character of strong national unity.

The question here is, when will homelands be built in the countries of the Arab East, which are witnessing wars? When will the sectarian structure of these countries and societies disintegrate? When will a strong national structure take root in its place and will just civil rule be imposed on all the various components of the state? In other words, when will we face a model of a strong, secure, and diverse state that is not based on sectarianism, revenge, and infighting between the various components of the people? When will a social contract be built whose goal is citizenship, not sectarian infighting or narrow, supremacist ideas? When will society succeed in establishing comprehensive national dialogues to unify them and achieve their unified demands, along with succeeding in fortifying society against factors of collapse, along with achieving success in spreading civil peace and preventing internal collapse.

The answer is that there is no exploitation by any country with external influence and through a loyal army linked to it, which it unfortunately exploits to inflame the internal situation and create a state of sectarian strife, in order to achieve its external goals, which it will achieve by creating a state of internal chaos in countries, in order to achieve gains for external forces that do not care about the citizen and the homeland, but rather its primary goal is to weaken countries and societies in order to dominate them, occupy them, control the capabilities of the homeland and divide it socially and geographically.