Introduction:
In every discussion about Syria’s future, in every conversation about prison reform, road improvements, or governance development, a seemingly innocent phrase is repeated, yet it carries within it a profound philosophical collapse: “Better than the Assad era.”
This phrase, which Syrians use in their gatherings and which reflects a tangible reality, makes the Assad regime—the most brutal regime in modern Syrian history—the standard by which to judge the performance of the new state.
In this article, we attempt to deconstruct this standard from a philosophical and social perspective, relying on scientific theories and recent statistics, to pose a fundamental question: How can a society liberate itself from measuring its progress by how far it has strayed from its dark past?
A Moral Catastrophe in Innocent Clothing:
At first glance, the phrase “better than the Assad era” seems like a mere observation, but it carries three disastrous dimensions:
First: Making the tyrant the standard. When we say, “The prisons are better than the Assad era,” we implicitly admit that Assad was the standard by which we measured ourselves.
It was as if his crimes weren’t out of character, but rather part of the norm from which we were gradually distancing ourselves.
One Damascus resident aptly expressed this paradox when she said, after the regime’s fall, “Anything in life is better than Bashar… anything is better than Bashar.”
This statement, reflecting the joy of liberation, carries within it the danger of turning “anything” into a standard, instead of striving for something better.
Secondly: Normalizing the Mean. When we compare ourselves to Assad, we acknowledge that the minimum standard of human dignity is to be less brutal than a regime that killed, imprisoned, and displaced millions of Syrians.
A survey conducted by the Arab Barometer in October/November 2025 showed that 76% of Syrians believe President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s policies are better than Assad’s, while another 76% believe their children’s lives would be better.
These figures reflect genuine optimism, no doubt, but they also reveal that comparison with Assad remains the prevailing mindset for evaluating performance.
Third: The shift from the better to the lesser of two evils. National aspirations become limited by comparing the present to the bleak past.
Instead of asking, “Are these prisons exemplary according to international standards?”, we ask, “Are they better than Assad’s prisons?”
A survey conducted by the “Renewed Syria” platform in June 2026 showed that the percentage of positive ratings of the government’s performance dropped from 25% in April to 20% in June, while the percentage of negative ratings rose from 44% to 52%.
This decline may indicate that the “honeymoon” that followed the fall of the regime is beginning to evaporate, and that Syrians are starting to evaluate the new government by its own standards, not just by comparing it to Assad.
The “Aspirations Trap” Theory:
To understand the roots of this standardization, we can refer to the concept of the “aspirations trap,” developed by researchers Aviad Heifetz and Enrico Minnelli in a mathematical model of behavioral economics.
This concept describes a situation where an individual or society is trapped in a cycle of suboptimal decisions due to their inability to anticipate how their aspirations and values will change after a crucial decision is made. This concept, known as the “aspiration trap,” was developed by researchers Aviad Heifetz and Enrico Minelli in a mathematical model of behavioral economics.
This concept describes a situation where an individual or society is trapped in a cycle of suboptimal decisions due to their inability to anticipate how their aspirations and values will change after a crucial decision is made.
In the Syrian context, the normative “better than Assad” can be interpreted as a form of the “aspiration trap.” After decades of oppression and poverty, Syrians have redefined their expectations based on their suffering rather than what they deserve.
The researchers’ analysis expressed this phenomenon by stating that “a characteristic observed in situations of oppression and deprivation is the inability to aspire to something better.” People perceive their situation as “inevitable” and sometimes lack the motivation to adopt alternative courses of action, even when the necessary infrastructure is available. This explains why a Syrian today might be content with a quiet life after having dreamt of mere survival, or with a functioning state after having dreamt of liberation from dictatorship.
When the dictator becomes the standard:
Herein lies a deeper philosophical dilemma: how do we measure progress? Do we measure it by improvement over the past, by approaching the ideal, or by comparison with the best in the world?
In philosophy, there is a difference between relative and absolute measurement.
Relative measurement compares something to something else, while absolute measurement measures it against an independent standard.
When we say, “Prisons are better than under Assad,” we are using relative measurement. But when we say, “Prisons should be exemplary according to international standards,” we are using absolute measurement.
The problem is that Syrians, in their daily discourse, are content with relative measurement and ignore absolute measurement.
This reminds us of moral relativism, where morality becomes relative and changes according to context. What is unacceptable in Switzerland becomes acceptable in Syria because we compare ourselves to Assad, not to the Swiss. The Arab Barometer survey showed that 81% of Syrians trust the president, 71% the national government, 84% the security forces, and 62% the courts. These high percentages may reflect genuine trust, but they may also indicate that Syrians are comparing these institutions to their counterparts under Assad, rather than to international standards.
Analyst Anchal Vohra, in her analysis of the Syrian situation, warned against this behavioral dilemma, cautioning against the dangers of relying solely on short-term logic that accepts any alternative simply because it halted the tragedy, without considering the long-term democratic and institutional outcomes.
Indications of a shift from relative to absolute standards:
Over time, there are signs that Syrians are beginning to shift from relative comparisons to Assad to an absolute assessment of the new government’s performance.
The Renewed Syria survey showed that the percentage of those who believe the country is heading in the right direction remained relatively stable at 25%, while the percentage of those who believe it is heading in the wrong direction rose from 30% to 46%.
This decline in positive ratings may indicate that Syrians They began evaluating the government by its own standards, not just by comparing it to Assad.
The same poll also showed that 68% of Syrians support teaching democratic values in schools, reflecting a shift from accepting less to demanding more.
Regarding transitional justice, 36% of respondents said that the trial of Atef Najib did not increase their confidence in the possibility of holding perpetrators of violations accountable, indicating that Syrians have begun demanding higher standards than simply “better than Assad.”
Towards a New Standard:
If the “better than Assad” standard is a disaster, what is the alternative? We can suggest three shifts:
First: Comparing to the desired level, not the previous one. We must compare Syria not to what it was, but to what it can be.
This requires a clear vision for the future and specific standards for progress that are not based on the past, but on national goals.
Second: Dual standards: a standard of absolute achievement (international standards) and a standard of relative achievement (improvement compared to Assad). Improving from the Assad era is a step in the right direction, but it is not the goal.
Third: Building a culture of demanding, not a culture of complacency. We must move from a culture of accepting little to a culture of demanding much. This requires a societal awareness that dignity is not a privilege granted, but a right that must be claimed.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, the phrase “better than the Assad era” reflects a tangible reality, but it is not a standard for evaluation, nor a measure of progress.
Assad is not a benchmark for anything except the collapse of the state, the violation of dignity, and the destruction of the future.
However, perhaps no one shares the joy of the Syrian citizen at the end of the Assad era, and perhaps this is the only consolation for the idea of relative standards.
The new Syria must be measured by how close it comes to a state of law, justice, and dignity.
The real question, indeed the one that must remain present, is not “Are we better than the Assad era?” but rather “Are we building a state that Syrians deserve?”
Let us free ourselves from the Assad standard, let us measure ourselves by the ideal, and let us build the Syria that future generations deserve.
the reviewer:
- Heifetz, A., & Minelli, E. (2015). Aspiration traps. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 15(2), 125-142.
- Arab Barometer. (2025, December). Fresh insights on post-Assad Syria: Survey findings.
- Clingendael Institute. (2026, April). Syria poll: How Syrians assess their lives, government, and political developments.
- Syria in Transition. (2026, June). Syria poll: Confidence in the People’s Assembly and governance.
- Minelli, E., & Heifetz, A. (2017). Aspiration traps. MaRDI Portal.
