The Case for a Federal Democratic Republic of Syria-Part II
- Khalil Zahr
- Apr 8, 2019
- 8 min read
In Part I of this article “The Case for a Federal Democratic Republic of Syria Part I,” I discussed the potential dangers of a U.S. withdrawal from Syria before reaching a comprehensive settlement for the crisis. I also addressed the inadequacy of partial solutions in bringing about a viable and comprehensive settlement. I discussed the staying power of the Assad regime, stipulated that it will be the main obstacle to reaching a viable settlement, and argued for the necessity of regime change.
In part II of the article, I outline a comprehensive settlement which meets the conditions of viability and sustainability, and above all, lays the foundation for a free, democratic, and peaceful Syria.
One may rationally surmise that a settlement with credible international guarantees that provides for the freedom and security of the Syrian people, addresses the concerns of Syria’s minorities, maintains the country’s territorial integrity, facilitates the safe return of refugees and the displaced, and enables economic and social development, will effectively remove the obstacles preventing constitutional reforms.
Such a settlement will require, at its foundation, a liberal democratic constitution that guarantees the freedoms and equality of all Syrians, and protects their political, cultural, social, and economic rights. It will also require a compatible governance structure built upon the principles of separation of powers, balance among three branches of government, the independence of the judiciary, and freedom of the press.
While the preceding requirements seem ambitious, they are more likely to be met by a decentralized governance structure, rather than a centralized structure prevalent in the Middle East. The main reason is that a centralized state does not satisfy the vital requirement of reassuring ethnic and religious minorities of their security and the sanctity of their constitutional rights and freedoms. Such assurances are necessary in order to break the hold of autocrats on their communities by alleviating the latter’s fears for their security, safety and freedom.
Examples abound from the Middle East and other parts of the developing world where ethnic or religious identification runs high, that a centralized state is liable to be captured politically, economically, or even culturally. The potential captors come in many colours; ethnic, religious, military, ideological, or oligarchical. Ironically, Syria has had a vivid experience of such capture, which is believed to have contributed strongly to the present crisis. Syria inherited a secular democratic constitution from the post-World War I French Mandate era, but soon after independence, it fell under the control of the socialist Baath Party. The latter became a Trojan horse for an Alawite dominated military dictatorship headed by the Assad clan.
The Pillars of a Federal Democratic Republic
A decentralized state, where most of the functions of government are devolved to the local level, will go a long way in satisfying the above conditions for a viable and comprehensive settlement of the Syrian crisis. Among other things, it will:
Provide sufficient local autonomy to meet the necessary requirements for the protection of cultural, social, political, and economic rights as enshrined in a liberal democratic constitution. It is envisioned that the provinces will be the sub-national administrative units and will have all the authorities not assigned to the central government. The provincial government will be responsible, among other things, for provincial policing and security, provincial fiscal policy, economic policy, social and cultural policy.
Strengthen the trust and boost the confidence of all Syrians in their security, safety and freedom. Equality under the law irrespective of ethnicity, religious belief, or gender, will in turn provide for stability by recognizing the diversity of the Syrian society.
Restore and strengthen national unity, which will be embodied in a central government with encompassing authorities that include sole responsibility for national defence and security, international trade, foreign affairs, monetary policy, federal budgeting & taxation, inter-provincial commerce, transportation, and communication, among others.
Effectively eliminate the risks of power capture by enhancing the influence of the provinces at the central (federal) level. This is accomplished by creating a new upper chamber of the congress at the federal level, in which the provinces are equally represented. In order for this chamber to strengthen the immunity to power capture, certain adjustments to the existing fourteen provinces should be made in order to enhance their diversity (Table 1 below describes one possible adjustment scenario).The upper chamber’s members are to be elected by direct popular vote at province-wide level. The authority of the chamber will include approval of all legislation including constitutional amendments, treaties and other international agreements and accords, among others. The upper chamber will also approve appointments of senior level federal positions in the executive, judicial, military and security services. Of special importance, however, is that decisions by the upper chamber must be taken by a minimum of a two-third majority, to ensure near consensus among Syria’s various communities, and prevent power capture.
Strengthen democratic rule by limiting the terms in office of the president of the federal republic, as well as the governors of the provinces. In order to be elected a president, the candidate must win the popular vote in at least three quarters of the provinces.
Addressing the Necessary Conditions of Feasibility
Given the myriad challenges that could face the adoption of such an admittedly ambitious proposal, it is nevertheless feasible if the following three conditions are satisfied:
An Unshakable Support and Material Commitment of World Democracies: A democratic solution to the Syrian crisis requires the support and commitment of like-minded democratic states. This must include the United States and its allies who have forces deployed in Syria in support of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). This commitment should also include, making the withdrawal of allied forces and lifting of sanctions conditional on the adoption and implementation of the reforms. An UN-led military presence will likely be needed for a period to ensure the full implementation of the reforms and to oversee the safe repatriation of all refugees and other displaced Syrians. The military presence must be at a scale and with sufficient authority to deter any attempts at thwarting the reforms or destabilizing the newly elected government. A strong commitment of democratic countries is essential in order to achieve a democratic solution for Syria. A solution based on a federal democratic model is alien to the Middle East region and will likely be opposed and resented by most regional players. It is, however, the only model that holds promise for sustainable peace and development, not only for Syria, but also for other conflict ridden or unstable states in the region; thus, the need for a strong and active role from the democratic world.
Bringing Russia on Board: Given Russia’s unique and influential position, not only with the Assad regime and its allies, but with influential regional players, its support and commitment to any future deal is vital. Russia’s main contribution will be in convincing the Assad regime to acquiesce to the proposed reforms. It will also have a material role in bringing Turkey, Iran, and Israel on board. The price for Russia’s cooperation would likely be high but manageable if the solution recognizes its strategic interests in Syria and the region. Russia would likely insist on retaining its Naval Base in Latakia and formalize the status of its Airbase in Hmeimim. (Hmeimim Air Base is a Syrian airbase currently operated by Russia, located south-east of the city of Latakia in Hmeimim, Latakia Governorate, Syria. The airbase shares some airfield facilities with Bassel Al-Assad International Airport). Any rights given to Russia or other parties, however, must be for a limited time period, whose renewal and scope to be negotiated with the future Syrian government elected under the new constitution.
Ensuring the Neutrality of Post-Conflict Syria: In light of vicious rivalries (Iran-Israel, Iran-Saudi Arabia/UAE, Turkey-Saudi Arabia/UAE, and Qatar-other GCC states) that plague the Middle East region, a sustainable settlement for the Syrian crisis will require that future Syria is insulated, as much as possible, from the dynamics of these conflicts. Neutrality is also considered necessary for satisfying the previous two conditions of gaining the support and commitment of world democracies, along with Russia and other influential world powers.
Elements of Strength: Why Such a Proposal Would Work
A settlement founded upon the pillars elaborated above, and in which the three stated conditions are met, stand to satisfy most of the reasonable demands and needs of the various stakeholders:
Syria
Foremost, it will provide the institutional environment under which peace with freedom can prevail. This will in turn enable the reconstruction process to proceed on secure footing, and for all the refugees and displaced to return safely to their homes without fear of persecution or intimidation.
This same environment will provide for the security, safety, and peace of mind of all the constituent ethnic and religious communities of Syria. The federal structure will not only go a long way in satisfying the aspirations of the Kurds, but will also settle the concerns of other minorities, particularly the Alawites, the Druze, and the Christians, among others. Equally important, it respects the status of the Sunni majority and frees it from the yoke of tyranny and oppression that it has been under. These factors will come together to enhance national unity by building trust and confidence among the various communities.
Turkey
It will effectively eliminate Turkey’s security concerns by satisfying Kurdish demands for political, social and cultural rights, and by putting border security under the control of military forces of a democratic and neutral Syria.
Iran
Syria’s neutrality and the resulting sense of security that is likely to prevail in the Alawite and Shia communities will remove any justifications for continued Iranian military presence. Furthermore, it should reassure Iran that Syria will not join adversarial alliances, and makes Israel using Syria’s airspace to attack it unlikely.
Israel
Israel will stand to gain from lifting the threats posed by the presence of Iranian military and associated forces in close proximity to its borders with Syria. Most importantly, the proposed settlement stands to increase the prospects of permanent peace between Israel and its neighbours. Whereas a democratic Syria would increase international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied Golan Heights, it will improve the prospect of reaching a mutually acceptable peace agreement. A possible scenario could include a demilitarized Golan under Syria’s sovereignty, where the area becomes part of a jointly managed Israeli-Syrian special economic zone stretching over both sides of their border. This arrangement should cement the peace with mutual economic benefits and trust building relationships. Furthermore, such an outcome will most likely lead to a permanent peace settlement with neighbouring Lebanon, in light of the overlap of border issues with Israel on the one hand and the strong linkage between Syria and Lebanon on the other.
Potential Threats: Motives to Undermine a Democratic Solution
While the proposed settlement offers all the regional players sufficient incentives to come on board, the prospect of a liberal democracy emerging in the Arab world will unfortunately be perceived as a threat by many of the autocratic regimes in the region. A successful liberal democracy will expose the failure of most of these states to achieve sustainable economic development and insure political freedoms and human rights. It should therefore be expected that a liberal democratic settlement, while the only viable solution to the Syrian crisis as illustrated earlier, will most certainly be met with resistance. The derailment of the Arab Spring provides sufficient and convincing evidence of a long running strategy of certain regional players bent on derailing and undermining any attempts for democratic change. Historically, such attempts at derailment have taken many forms, but abetting and providing support to reactionary extremists’ forces to undermine mostly peaceful agitation for democratic reforms, has been the most utilized strategy.
Consequently, defending against these threats will require sufficient vigilance from the Democratic World, a strong stance on enforcing the settlement, and close and long-term engagement to see its full implementation.
Opportunities: Motives to Support Such a Solution
In spite of strong justifications for pursuing a democratic solution for the Syrian crisis, justifiable skepticism will likely prevail, particularly if the benefits to the world of such a pursuit are insufficiently appreciated. Calling on the world in general and world democracies in particular, to invest in a democratic settlement in a region in which democracy has failed to take root is a main challenge in itself. It is submitted however, that in all previous occasions where opportunities for democratic reforms rose in the region, they were sacrificed at the altar of political expediency and business interests. These alternative approaches to conflict resolution have consistently failed to bring lasting stability and peace. Most importantly, they failed in laying the foundation for sustainable economic growth and social development.
In Syria, the developed world has a unique opportunity, not only to aid the Syrian people in building a new prosperous future, but also to help itself. Our most important global challenges such as climate change, international refugees, illegal immigration, and WMD proliferation, among others, are mainly caused and perpetuated by failed governance, weak democratic rule, and precipitant poverty. Successfully meeting these challenges will require encompassing world growth and development with no region or country left behind.
END
Comments