Introduction:
Continuity and Transformation in Syrian Political Discourse:
The phenomenon of accusing supporters of the new government of “flattery” poses a profound problem in the current transitional phase. It calls for a multi-dimensional analysis that links political philosophy, social psychology, and historical transformation.
After the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, a discourse emerged that rejected any support for the new government led by Ahmad al-Sharaa, considering it an extension of the “tashbih” and “flattery” phenomena of the previous regime. This rejection conflates two fundamentally different concepts:
Legitimate political support within a democratic context based on pluralism and criticism, and “flattery” as an authoritarian mechanism to suppress reason and criticism.
This paper aims to analyze this problem and establish a philosophical and political distinction between the two concepts, based on an analysis of the roots of the phenomenon during the Assad era and its current ramifications.
Theoretical Framework: Drumming as a Mechanism of Power:
In terms of concept and mechanism, drumming can be defined as “the excessive and subjective exaggeration of praise for a person, entity, or institution, presenting them as above criticism and infallible, often motivated by flattery, self-interest, or fear of punishment.”
This concept transcends being merely a rhetorical practice and has become a tool for subjugating the collective consciousness and destroying the capacity for criticism.
Drumming takes its name from the image of loud drumming to attract attention and influence minds, even when the facts are completely opposite.
In the Syrian context, drumming has transformed from a mere rhetorical phenomenon into something resembling a “ghosting state,” where it is not limited to glorification and praise, but extends beyond that to pressuring people to accept and repeat the sanctifying discourse, such that it becomes a collective, oppressive behavior that compels individuals to comply.
As for its psychological and social foundations, the drumming mechanism operates according to several psychological and social motivations, including:
- Fear and survival: In oppressive environments, any critical expression becomes a personal risk, so individuals resort to exaggerated praise as a means of protection from security persecution or social exclusion.
- Greed and privilege: Drumming becomes a utilitarian investment to obtain material or professional benefits, transforming it into a “currency” traded by ambitious individuals in environments lacking standards of integrity.
- Compensatory psychological mechanism: During periods of transition, some previously marginalized individuals feel that their proximity to the new authority compensates for their past, so they resort to drumming as a declaration of personal victory.
- Political identity disorder: Individuals raised in oppressive environments lose the ability to distinguish between conscious commitment and psychological dependence on compensatory symbols.
Historical Roots: Drumming During the Assad Era as a Model of Tyranny:
Hafez al-Assad built a political system based on an exaggerated personality cult. Political discourse became a “swamp of drumming,” mixing “complex hypocrisy with a chorus of sycophants and flatterers who weave an exaggerated myth of deification around the ruler.”
This was evident in phrases such as “You are not worthy of the Arab world; you must lead the world,” said to his son Bashar, which represented “a fatal political shift aimed at transforming a political figure with limited capabilities and a contradictory record into a model of absolute power.”
Loyalty under the Assads then became an “unwritten commitment” that pressured individuals to comply.
Then emerged what might be called the “manipulators,” whose publicly declared relationship with the regime was transformed into an emotional, non-political discourse. The relationship with the regime became expressed emotionally, not politically.
In this environment, loyalty was no longer merely a matter of political support, but rather a “demonstration of loyalty” that required the individual to exaggerate the glorification of the ruler as his oppression increased.
The Transitional Phase, From the Logic of Revolution to State Administration:
With the fall of the Assad regime and the emergence of Ahmad al-Sharaa as president of the transitional period, the nature of power changed from a hereditary authoritarian regime to a transitional authority tasked with building a state from the ruins of war. This fundamental shift calls for a redefinition of the citizen’s relationship with the government. The new government does not represent a hereditary, oppressive regime, but rather represents a transitional phase subject to accountability and accountability.
Three types of discourse appear to have emerged during the transitional period:
- The discourse of absolute rejection: rejects any form of support for the new government and considers it a continuation of the shabiha.
- The discourse of uncritical support: falls into the trap of reproducing the culture of glorification inherited from the previous regime.
- The discourse of critical support: supports the government but maintains its right to criticism and accountability.
In the philosophical distinction between “flattery” and “legitimate support,” criteria must be established. The two concepts can be distinguished through several criteria:
- · Reference: Flattery is based on emotion and unconditional subordination, while legitimate support is based on performance, programs, and policies.
- · The supporter’s position on mistakes: Flattery denies mistakes and justifies failures, while legitimate support acknowledges errors and demands their correction.
- Motive: Flattery is driven by fear, greed, or psychological compensation, while legitimate support is driven by a conviction of legitimacy and performance.
- The Other’s Perspective: Flattery rejects the opposing view and accuses its intentions, while legitimate support respects pluralism and recognizes the legitimacy of difference.
- Relationship to Authority: Flattery is based on a relationship of subordination and submission, while legitimate support is based on a relationship of accountability and participation.
Here, it must be emphasized that Ahmad al-Sharaa is not the same as Bashar al-Assad in any way, and support for him cannot be equated with praising Assad for several fundamental reasons:
· Sharaa came to power through a post-revolutionary transitional process, while Assad inherited power through an authoritarian hereditary regime.
· Sharaa’s authority is transitional and temporary, while Assad’s regime was permanent and unaccountable.
· Sharaa faces the task of rebuilding a state from ruins, while Assad was responsible for destroying it.
Societal Psychology: From Dependency to Citizenship:
1- The Legacy of Tyranny and the Difficulty of Transition:
The roots of the problem of “praising Assad” lie in the mental structure formed over decades of authoritarian rule. “Those who had been accustomed for years to glorifying Assad smoothly transitioned to glorifying an alternative that carried a discourse that contradicted him.” This apparent contradiction reveals the persistence of the same mechanism of thought. Adulation does not stem from a political position as much as it is “a psychological defensive act, reflecting the identity disorder suffered by a significant number of Syrians.”
2- Towards a Democratic Awareness:
Freedom from sycophancy requires a shift from a mentality of dependency to a mentality of citizenship, whereby the individual transforms from being subject to authority to being a partner in its creation and an observer of its performance. This transformation is not easy, as “the demise of the regime does not automatically lead to the birth of a democratic awareness; rather, it may produce new forms of blind loyalty under various slogans.”
Conclusion: Towards a New Political Culture:
Accusing all those who support the new authority of “sycophancy” represents a real problem that hinders the development of democratic practice after Assad.
True democracy requires space for support and opposition, for appreciation and criticism, for praise and accountability.
Not every support for the new authority can be reduced to “sycophancy,” nor can every opposition be described as “treason.”
The distinction between flattery and legitimate support is based on criticism, objectivity, and recognition of the right to disagree. Legitimate support is critical, acknowledging achievements and pointing out mistakes, offering support while preserving the right to accountability.
While flattery is blind support, sanctifying authority and considering it infallible.
Therefore, we in the Syrian Future Movement believe that the current Syrian political mentality requires a new political culture—one that accepts difference, respects pluralism, and distinguishes between legitimate political support and flattery as an authoritarian legacy. A democratic society is one “equidistant from its citizens,” one that maintains its right to accountability and questioning, regardless of the identity of those in power.
Freedom from flattery is a political and cultural condition for any genuine renaissance project. Without it, we will continue to revolve in a vicious circle, replacing one face with another while maintaining the same authoritarian mentality.
“This cycle of theatrical glorification and political rhetoric has produced a sophisticated stagnation that reproduces the Syrian crisis day after day.”
Exiting it requires “building a national political culture based on transparency and accountability, and re-establishing a framework that allows constructive criticism to open up.”
