Inherited Political Culture: Subservience as a Psychological State
The greatest challenge facing the implementation of democracy in Syria is not institutions or laws, but rather the inherited political culture that has been shaped over centuries of tyranny and backwardness. Syrians have lived under the shadow of centralized authoritarian regimes for decades, to the point that a mentality of submission and surrender has become part of the collective unconscious, where fear becomes the culture, obedience the habit, and surrender a virtue. This is what I call internal colonialism, where a person remains enslaved to the mentality of subservience even after the physical chains of oppression have fallen. Democracy is not merely electoral mechanisms or constitutional institutions; it is a psychological and cultural state. This culture is a reality that cannot be achieved through laws or constitutions alone, but rather through a radical transformation of the collective consciousness via democratic education. Education in the Arab world stifles creativity and kills the critical spirit. Therefore, we need an educational revolution that transforms the school into a laboratory for democracy, where students learn democracy through practice, not theoretical lectures. This can be achieved by establishing elected student councils with real authority in school management and curricula that focus on critical thinking, problem-solving, and community projects, where students participate in solving their communities’ problems. Through a vibrant civil society that redefines the relationship between the individual and authority, and through a free media that breaks down barriers of fear and fosters a culture of dialogue and critique, I must say that when some ask me how to implement democracy in a country like Syria, I tell them: the challenge is liberating the Syrian mind from a culture of fear and blind obedience. True democracy requires an aware citizen who doesn’t wait for salvation from an external hero but believes that he is the architect of his own destiny and the master of his own fate. In the post-war context, where Syrians have become more hesitant and fearful, this makes the challenge even more difficult. People are genuinely searching for security and stability and are willing to sacrifice freedoms for bread and safety. But I emphasize: there is no true stability without true freedom, and no lasting security without true justice.
The Dominance of the Nation-State and Absolute Centralization
The second challenge lies in dismantling the structure of the centralized nation-state that has dominated the Arab region for decades. The modern nation-state in the Arab region is not a natural phenomenon but rather a product of colonialism and colonial projects that drew borders and created artificial entities. This nation-state has never been a state of citizenship but rather a state of officers, a single party, and a security apparatus that rules in the name of stability, national security, resistance, and confronting Zionism, while simultaneously destroying genuine stability. This structure does not permit democracy because it sees democracy as a threat to its existence. In Syria, for example, the dominance of the military and security establishment over political, economic, and social life is one of the greatest obstacles to building democracy. The army and security forces were not created to defend the homeland and its citizens but to protect the regime and its power. When we speak of democratic transition, we primarily mean dismantling this authoritarian structure and rebuilding state institutions on new and sound foundations. The fact that the traditional centralized state has failed to manage Syria’s diversity is not the solution, but rather part of the problem. Therefore, it is crucial to shift from a logic of centralized power to one of shared power, where everyone participates in decision-making and bears responsibility—that is, democratic decentralization. This does not imply a weak state, but rather a strong society. When decisions are close to the people, they are more effective and equitable. For example, the Swiss model demonstrates that decentralization and direct democracy can coexist with a strong and stable state. Despite its linguistic and cultural diversity, Switzerland has built a successful state because it relied on citizen participation in governance instead of excluding them.
Through democratic decentralization, which is the transfer of power from the center to the local community, we can also undermine the power of the military establishment by transforming it into a purely defensive institution subject to civilian oversight, and by dismantling the security apparatus and rebuilding it as institutions that protect the citizen and not as tools of repression. The democratic decentralization that I see as very suitable for Syria is not an administrative division, but rather a revolution against the concept of power. Power should be in the hands of society and not in the hands of the central bureaucracy. But this requires a radical transformation in the mental structure of the ruling elite, who are accustomed to ordering and controlling, and of the people, who are accustomed to being obeyed.
Artificial Social and Sectarian Divisions
The third serious challenge is social, sectarian, and ethnic divisions. The fact that traditional Arab regimes treat ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity as a threat to be eliminated through nationalist or religious unification projects that attempt to impose a single identity on everyone is disastrous. The result is discrimination, oppression, internal conflicts, and ultimately, an unstable and unsustainable system of governance. Democracy, on the other hand, is based on pluralism as a fundamental value. Diversity is a source of strength, not weakness; difference is a prerequisite for creativity and development; and peaceful coexistence is the basis of national identity, not forced unification. Cultural rights are constitutionally and legally guaranteed. Traditional Arab regimes are based on a culture of fear—fear of the other, fear of freedom, fear of change. This culture creates a rigid society where critical thinking is a crime, difference is heresy, and creativity is rebellion. However, Arab society can be rebuilt on the values of enlightenment and tolerance, instead of ignorance and fanaticism. Democracy is not merely a model of governance; it is a civilizational choice that determines the future of the Arab nation. When we choose democracy, we choose life over death, construction over destruction, hope over despair, and humanity over power. The challenges are immense, but We are no strangers to challenges. The Arab nation has faced the most difficult circumstances throughout history and has always been able to rise again when it placed its trust in its youth, its women, and its deep-rooted human values. For example, in Syria, the regime exploited and deepened social, sectarian, and ethnic divisions to remain in power. When a ruler sees that the unity of the people threatens his authority, he works to divide them and fuel conflicts among their various groups. This is what happened in Syria, where the regime transformed Syrian diversity from an asset into a curse and from a strength into a weakness. True democracy requires national unity in the face of power, not division in service of that power. However, achieving this unity in a reality rife with wounds, revenge, and vendettas is no easy task. We need a genuine national reconciliation process, not mere superficial agreements. We need a real process that addresses these wounds with honesty and humanity. Indeed, democracy cannot be built in conflict zones without genuine national reconciliation. Reconciliation is not simply a general amnesty or a political agreement between elites; it is a profound process that addresses historical wounds and rebuilds trust between different groups. In my view, reconciliation should begin with reconciliation tribunals or truth and justice commissions that enjoy complete independence, listen to victims of the conflict from all sides, and strive to uncover the full truth about violations, not just punish individuals. Justice in conflict zones does not mean revenge, but rather restoring human dignity and rebuilding trust. These commissions must be representative of all segments of society, operate with complete transparency, and offer practical recommendations for reforming institutions and rebuilding social relations. True reconciliation requires the courage to acknowledge mistakes, the courage to forgive, and the courage to build the future together. The greatest challenge in conflict zones is the failure of the civilizational model that produced the conflict itself. The centralized nation-state that dominated Syria and many other Arab countries has failed. In managing diversity, where difference has been transformed into a cause of violence and fragmentation, the alternative I see as appropriate is a democratic project based on the concepts of participation, pluralism, and decentralization. This project transcends the traditional nation-state to become a new model for coexistence, one that does not rely on uniformity in everything—whether cultural, ethnic, or religious—but rather represents a society of shared values such as democracy, freedom, equality, justice, and pluralism. These shared values can be the bridge that unites Syrians across their differences and builds a new national identity based on genuine citizenship, not on primordial affiliations. Indeed, in this model, Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Arabs, Kurds, Syriacs, Sunnis, Alawites, and Druze can live together in one homeland, not despite their differences, but because of them.
Neocolonialism and Regional Conflicts
The Arab world today is an arena of conflict between regional and international powers, each attempting to impose its model and advance its interests. Iran supports militias in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, while Turkey competes with Iran for influence. Western powers intervene in the name of fighting terrorism while simultaneously supporting authoritarian regimes. This new colonialism hinders democracy because it transforms countries into battlegrounds, supports corrupt ruling elites, and undermines independent national institutions. The challenge here is to build a democracy with genuine national independence, free from external tutelage. This requires internal national unity as a prerequisite for liberation from external control, as well as establishing balanced international relations that are not dependent on any single power. It also requires building an independent national economy that is not subject to political blackmail, and ending the tribal, ethnic, and sectarian societal divisions. Tyranny has not only destroyed institutions but also the social fabric itself. Centuries of autocratic rule and despotic regimes have created deep ethnic, national, sectarian, tribal, and regional divisions. Clever despots exploit these divisions to ensure their survival—divide and rule. This has been the strategy of all despotic rulers. In Iraq and Yemen, sectarianism destroyed the state and prevented the building of national institutions. In Libya today, tribalism has made national unity a distant dream. True democracy requires genuine national reconciliation that rebuilds trust among social, ethnic, and national groups. This cannot be achieved through decrees or laws, but rather through local reconciliation mechanisms that address these issues. Historical wounds, a participatory economy that creates common interests among different components, national education that builds a national identity above primary affiliations, and recognition of cultural and ethnic diversity. The challenge here is how to build Syrian democracy with true national independence while benefiting from international experiences without falling into the trap of foreign guardianship. This is a fact that requires deep national awareness and the ability to distinguish between the true friend who supports democracy and the disguised enemy who wants to control the Syrian decision.
