Introduction:
In the realms of politics and economics, the successful experiences of developed countries are often seen as sources of inspiration for nations striving to emerge from crises. But can these experiences be replicated without taking into account the cultural, social, and political particularities of each state? This question becomes especially relevant in light of Syrian businessman Ayman Asfari’s statement on Syria TV, in which he called for replicating the experiences of Singapore and other advanced countries in Syria—without regard for Syria’s unique context.
From a philosophical perspective, the replication of global experiences can be viewed as part of the concept of “globalism,” which promotes the adoption of best practices regardless of national borders. However, this concept at times clashes with the idea of “cultural particularity,” which emphasizes that every society has its own specific context that must be considered when applying any external model.
Singapore, for example, succeeded thanks to its strong political system and its investment in education and technology. But can Syria—suffering from weak institutions and a lack of trust among its social components—adopt the same approach? Or does the solution lie in developing a unique model that takes local challenges into account?
Mr. Ayman Asfari’s statement highlights the need for critical thinking when drawing inspiration from global experiences. His remarks sparked intellectual and political debate in Syria about the feasibility of replicating the models of successful countries like Singapore. Opinions are divided between those who view the Western liberal model or the Asian authoritarian model as ideal solutions, and those who stress the importance of respecting Syria’s particularity.
This debate is not new in the field of political philosophy. It revolves around the central question: How can universal principles—such as democracy and human rights—be reconciled with the cultural and historical particularities of societies?
Philosophical Foundations: Universalism vs. Particularism
The discussion stems from a profound philosophical dichotomy between Universalism, which calls for the application of cross-cultural principles—as seen in John Rawls’s theory of “Justice as Fairness,” which prioritizes fundamental freedoms and democratic institutions—and Particularism, which asserts, as Michael Walzer argues in his book Thick and Thin, that political systems must emerge from the “moral thickness” of societies, meaning their accumulated values and historical experiences.
Within this framework, Amartya Sen, in The Idea of Justice, offers a critique of rigid universalism, pointing out that justice should be built through a comparative approach that respects human diversity, rather than by imposing an abstract ideal model.
The Syrian Particularity:
Understanding Syria’s particularity requires unpacking its multiple layers, which can be summarized as follows:
- Historical: From the Ottoman legacy to the French Mandate, followed by Ba’ath Party dominance, and culminating in the recent revolution that reshaped the social and political structure.
- Social: A complex tapestry of sectarian (Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Druze…) and tribal diversity, with intensified sub-identity conflicts due to the war.
- Geopolitical: Syria’s strategic location as a battleground for regional and international conflicts makes any political model subject to external influences.
- Cultural: A blend of Arab and Islamic identity with a rich cultural heritage, including local traditions that sometimes clash with Western individualism.
These components present serious challenges to replicating a rigid, centralized model like Singapore’s—which relies on paternalistic authority and an open market economy—in a context as heterogeneous as Syria’s.
Global Experiences: Smart Replication and Respect for Particularity
Historically, some countries have successfully adopted foreign models after adapting them to their own contexts. Japan, during the Meiji era (1868–1912), borrowed Western institutions while preserving its Japanese identity by integrating Confucian values.
In post-apartheid South Africa, the country blended a liberal constitution with traditional reconciliation mechanisms, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Rwanda employed traditional Gacaca courts to manage transitional justice after the genocide, while maintaining modern state institutions.
Even Singapore itself combined a free-market economy with an authoritarian system, drawing on Asian values like family and social discipline.
These experiences suggest that successful replication requires adaptation—or Hybridity, a concept introduced by Homi Bhabha in postcolonial studies—which means blending imported models with local elements.
Between Neglect and Reconciliation:
This article, grounded in empirical knowledge, argues that when models are imposed without regard for context, the outcomes can be disastrous.
In Iraq, the dissolution of the army and the Ba’ath Party led to the disintegration of the social structure, paving the way for sectarian conflict.
In Afghanistan, the centralized democratic system failed to coexist with the tribal framework.
These and other examples affirm Edward Said’s warning in Orientalism about the dangers of a one-dimensional view of peoples—one that overlooks their complexities.
Therefore, at the Syrian Future Movement, we lean toward a Syrian model that reconciles the universal with the particular, as a means to ensure the stability of future Syria. Accordingly, our vision is based on building a political model founded on:
- Participatory Dialogue: Involving local actors (tribes, sectarian representatives, civil elites) in drafting the social contract, as proposed by Jürgen Habermas in his theory of the public sphere.
- Hybrid Institutions: Specifically, integrating democratic mechanisms (such as local elections) with traditional structures (like tribal reconciliation councils).
- Flexible Justice: By adopting Amartya Sen’s concept of “Capabilities,” which links economic and social rights to local culture.
Conclusion:
The Syrian particularity is not an obstacle to modernization, as it may seem, but rather a necessary framework to ensure the legitimacy of any political model. Wise replication does not mean blind imitation, but rather a critical engagement with global experiences, as Japan and South Africa have done.
In this context, political philosophy offers tools to understand the balance between the universal and the particular, emphasizing that Syria’s future must be built from within, through a dialogue that acknowledges its diversity and draws inspiration from the successes of others without losing its identity.
The Scientific Office
Jomaa Mohammed Laheeb
Research and Studies Department
Articles
Syrian Future Movement
