Syria from marginalization to democratic revolution

July 19th of this year marks the 13th anniversary of the Rojava Revolution, a revolution that marked a significant shift between the past and future of the region's peoples, following the outbreak of the Syrian Revolution in 2011. In this issue, we review the reality of Syria before and after.

The features of modern Syria began to take shape with the end of Ottoman rule following World War I, specifically after the entry of French forces into Syria in 1920 and the imposition of the French mandate under the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the San Remo Conference.

The San Remo Conference, held in April 1920, is a pivotal moment in the history of the Middle East after World War I, shaping the contours of European influence in the region. It was attended by the victorious allies of World War I: Britain, France, Italy, and Japan.

The primary objective of the conference was to distribute mandates across the lands of the collapsed Ottoman Empire, particularly in the Levant, in accordance with the Treaty of Sèvres, signed on August 10, 1920, between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied powers following the Ottoman defeat in World War I. Syria and Lebanon were under the French Mandate; Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq were under the British Mandate; and the Balfour Declaration was included in the conference's decisions, paving the way for the establishment of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine.

The General Syrian Congress, which acted as a national council representing the various natural regions of Syria, including Lebanon and Palestine, rejected the San Remo resolutions and declared the independence of Syria within its natural borders, including Palestine. It installed Prince Faisal as king, who declared the Kingdom of Syria under his leadership in 1920. However, the Kingdom of Syria was short-lived due to the Battle of Maysalun and the French invasion.

During this period, the first Syrian constitution was drafted on July 13, 1920. It adopted a monarchy and consisted of 148 articles divided into 12 chapters, addressing the form of government, individual rights, the organization of powers, and public finances. It remained in effect for 11 days before being abrogated following the Battle of Maysalun on July 24, 1920.

After King Faisal declared Syria's independence, France refused to recognize the national government, and French General Gouraud issued an ultimatum demanding the dissolution of the Syrian army and acceptance of the mandate. Faisal agreed to the terms under pressure, but Yusuf al-Azma refused to surrender and decided to resist.

The first defense minister in history to die fighting in the field.

The Battle of Maysalun, which took place on July 24, 1920, is a watershed moment in modern Syrian history, as it marked the transition from the dream of independence to the reality of the French Mandate. Yusuf al-Azma, of Kurdish origin from a Damascene family, was the Minister of War in the Syrian Kingdom. He was the hero of this battle and a symbol of national sacrifice. Yusuf al-Azma was martyred on the battlefield, becoming the first defense minister in history to die fighting in the field.

The Battle of Maysalun was not militarily equal, but it was a cry of dignity in the face of occupation. Yusuf al-Azma became a symbol of national heroism, immortalizing his name in Syrian memory for choosing death over surrender.

The French authorities divided Syria into six main administrative units: the State of Damascus, the State of Aleppo, the Alawite State, the State of Jabal al-Druze, the State of Greater Lebanon (later to become the Lebanese Republic), and the Sanjak of Alexandretta (which was annexed to Turkey in 1939).

In 1925, the states of Damascus and Aleppo were united into a single entity called the Syrian State, which later developed into the First Syrian Republic after the 1930 Constitution.

The Kurds and France

During the French Mandate (1920–1946), the Kurds in Syria constituted an active and multifaceted group. Their roles varied between participating in the national struggle, striving to protect their cultural identity, and engaging in the political and social life of a newly emerging society. The Kurds suddenly found themselves in a new political entity, subject to a colonial authority that did not recognize their uniqueness or collective rights, creating a complex context of interaction and confrontation.

Despite the French authorities' attempts to win over some Kurdish elites through "divide and rule" policies, the Kurds engaged in resistance against the French occupation, not only out of general national motives, but also out of rejection of colonialism, which threatened their cultural uniqueness and historical identity.

The Battle of Bayandur, located between the cities of Qamishlo and Tirbespiye, is a testament to the national cohesion between Kurds and Arabs. It is one of the most prominent confrontations against the French occupation in northeastern Syria and took place in July 1923, near the village of Bayandur, east of Qamishli. This battle was marked by the solidarity of Kurdish and Arab tribes in the face of French tyranny, and was an example of the unity of blood and destiny in al-Jazira Canton.

During the three-day battle against French tyranny, led by Captain Rogan, who humiliated and arrested tribal leaders, including the humiliating execution of Kurdish leader Suleiman Abbas and the arrest of Arab sheikhs such as Mohammad al-Abd al-Rahman, French forces withdrew from Bayandur and retreated to Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor. The battle became a symbol of Kurdish-Arab solidarity and prompted France to reconsider its military presence in the region.

The Role of the Kurds in the Great Syrian Revolution of 1925

The Kurds played a pivotal role in igniting the Great Syrian Revolution of 1925, the first spark of which was ignited in Afrin by Mahu Shasho in coordination with the Kurdish leader Ibrahim Hanano. The Kurds participated in leading the political and military action alongside Dr. Abdul Rahman Shahbandar, who proposed the slogan of armed struggle in opposition to the compromise option adopted by the National Bloc.

Kurdish leaders from various regions of Syria—from north to south—also cooperated in leading the struggle, such as Ahmad al-Mulla in Damascus, Abdul Razzaq al-Dandashi in Homs, Mahmoud al-Barazi and Najib Agha al-Barazi in Hama, and Nur al-Din Bazido in Jabal al-Akrad in Latakia.

Kurdish youth also played an active role in the national and student movement, particularly in Damascus, where Khaled Bakdash, later Secretary-General of the Communist Party, and Ali Buzu, who founded the Syrian Students Union and the Kurdistan Scout Troop, emerged. This youth elite contributed to the demand for an independent, pluralistic, and democratic Syria, in cooperation with various Syrian factions.

Liberation and the Rise of the Republic

When France withdrew from Syrian territory on April 17, 1946, it seemed that Syria had entered a new era of national sovereignty. However, this political independence was not accompanied by institutional stability. Syrian society emerging from the cloak of the mandate was burdened with challenges: a weak administrative structure, sectarian divisions, and contradictions within national identity between regionalism and the desire for unity.

During the period (1946–1949), the Syrian Republic attempted to establish a parliamentary democratic system, but the experiment quickly ran into the obstacle of military coups, beginning with Husni al-Zaim, followed by Sami al-Hinnawi and Adib al-Shishakli. While the democratic discourse remained formally present, the military forces began to impose their logic on political life.

The year 1954 was a turning point in Syria's history, witnessing significant political and social events that reshaped the national landscape. General Faisal al-Atassi led a coup on February 25, 1954, from Aleppo. He began by arresting the military commander of the northern region and seizing control of communications buildings and Aleppo Radio. A statement was broadcast in the name of "Free Syria Radio" calling on military divisions to join the revolution. The garrisons of Latakia, Deir ez-Zor, Homs, and Daraa joined the coup, leading to the resignation of President Adib al-Shishakli on February 26.

1After the fall of Adib al-Shishakli, the 1950 constitution, drafted under Hashim al-Atassi, was reinstated. It is considered one of the most progressive Syrian constitutions, establishing a parliamentary system, enhancing freedoms, and separating powers, while reducing the powers of the president in favor of parliament. In 1954, the country witnessed fair parliamentary elections in which most political forces participated, marking a remarkable democratic milestone in Syrian and Arab history. However, this experience soon collided with the reality of the fragility of the political structure and the absence of a social contract to ensure its continuity.

After Hashim al-Atassi's term ended in 1955, Shukri al-Quwatli returned to the presidency through parliamentary elections, leading a new phase in Syria's political history marked by the pursuit of Arab unity. In 1958, under his leadership, Syria entered into a merger with Egypt, described as a response to popular desire for a national project to resist Western hegemony. However, the sense of central decision-making supremacy in Cairo weakened the balance between the two states, leading to Syria's secession in 1961 by a group of officers. This experience once again revealed the fragility of civil institutions and the superiority of the military's role over the logic of the state and the constitution

After Syria's secession from the United Arab Republic, the country's name was officially changed to the "Syrian Arab Republic" on September 28, 1961. This move aimed to consolidate Syria's Arab identity, despite the end of the union with Egypt and the ethnic and cultural diversity of Syrian society. This name reflected the spirit of the Arab nationalist movement prevalent at the time. Since then, the name has remained officially adopted in Syrian constitutions, including the 1973 and 2012 constitutions.

These changes reveal much about national identity, political structure, and social relations in Syria: First, the strengthening of the centralization of power; second, the marginalization of the Kurds, which contributed to the construction of a centralized state governed by the ruling elite, without the real participation of all Syrian communities; third, the fear of pluralism, as the regime viewed multiculturalism as a threat to the unity of the state, which led it to adopt policies of denial of Kurdish presence, fearing demands for independence or autonomy. Fourth, linking national identity to Arab nationalism. The concept of the "Arab nation" was used as a political framework that refused to recognize the existence of other nationalities, weakening Kurdish political representation.

Policies toward the Kurds were not merely security measures; they were an integrated system aimed at redefining Syrian identity, reducing diversity in favor of a unilateralist vision. This approach produced national fragility, with social justice absent, and a fundamental component of the country's fabric marginalized.

Amid these fluctuations, the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party worked to consolidate its presence in the army and society, with a program that combined Arab nationalism and socialism. The Ba'ath viewed the recurring political crisis as an opportunity to penetrate the existing system, supported by a network of officers enthusiastic about its revolutionary ideology.

This change also contributed to the exceptional census of 1962, which marked the beginning of the birth of the "foreigners" category and the deprivation of citizenship for thousands of Kurds.

The March 8, 1963 Coup and the Birth of the Ba'ath Regime

The Ba'ath Party seized power through a military coup on March 8, 1963, led by officers such as Salah Jadid and Ziad Hariri, ushering in a new era of centralized ideological rule. The coup was the culmination of a long struggle between traditional, civilian forces on the one hand, and ideologically motivated officers on the other, which later led to the establishment of a totalitarian party system that abolished pluralism and concentrated power in the hands of the military elite.

After the Ba'ath Party assumed power, in 1963, a security study was issued by Mohammad Talab Hilal, head of the political branch in Hasakah, calling for the displacement of Kurds from the border strip. The idea was discussed in 1965–1966 at Ba'ath Party conferences and considered part of "strengthening national security." In 1974, actual implementation began with the confiscation of Kurdish lands and the resettlement of thousands of Arab families from Raqqa and Aleppo.

More than 4,000 Arab families were settled in 41 model villages built on confiscated land. The "Arab Belt Project" officially began on June 24, 1974, by decision number 521 of the Regional Command of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. It included the establishment of an Arab belt 10–15 km deep along the border with northern Kurdistan, passing through the Kurdish areas of present-day Hasakah canton.

The project came after the construction of the Euphrates Dam, which submerged Arab lands. This was used as a pretext to settle those affected in Kurdish lands, as part of a demographic engineering plan aimed at separating Syrian Kurds from their geographical and cultural presence in Turkey and Iraq.

This was followed by policies banning the Kurdish language, prohibiting Kurdish-specific events such as Newroz, and prohibiting the teaching of their history and language. Kurdish areas were marginalized, strict censorship was imposed, and the names of Kurdish villages were changed to Arabic names that had no connection to the people's authenticity or geography.

The Kurdish people in particular, and the people of northeastern Syria in general, suffered from systematic policies aimed at marginalizing them politically, culturally, and socially from the end of the French Mandate until the rule of the Ba'ath Party. These policies included weak political representation in state institutions and a lack of economic development. Government investments were limited to specific areas, while vital sectors such as agriculture and infrastructure in Hasakah, Raqqa, and Deir ez-Zor were neglected.

The needs of the local population, particularly Kurds, Arabs, and Assyrians, were also ignored, creating a sense of injustice and providing fertile ground for demands for rights.

As the Ba'ath Party tightened its grip on Syria through presidential decrees and martial law, the Ba'ath regime sought to create a rift between the Kurdish and Arab peoples. On March 12, 2004, the city of Qamishli witnessed one of its bloodiest and most influential events. A popular Kurdish uprising erupted following a massacre committed by security forces during a football match between the Al-Jihad Club and the Al-Futuwa Club from Deir ez-Zor. This uprising became a cornerstone of the democratic revolution in northern and eastern Syria.

 The denial practiced against the Kurds and the people of northern and eastern Syria exacerbated feelings of cultural marginalization and alienation and contributed to building a collective consciousness seeking to recognize identity and pluralism. The popular movement of 2011 opened the door to demands for political, economic, and social rights that had long been denied to large segments of the population. With the decline of the security grip in a number of areas, an autonomous administration emerged, aiming to achieve democratic self-governance.

 From Marginalization to Democratic Revolution

The historical accumulation of marginalization and denial, coupled with the momentum of the July 19, 2012 revolution, generated strong motivations to formulate an alternative political and social model. The Democratic Autonomous Administration project emerged as a realistic response to the local context, based on concepts such as social justice, equality among communities, and women's empowerment.

 This project is not merely a reaction to the Syrian crisis; rather, it reimagines the nature of governance and citizenship in a context of multiple identities and cultures.

 Amid the turbulent transformations that Syria has witnessed since independence, the Autonomous Administration project in the north and east of Syria emerged as an alternative and effective model for rebuilding Syria on democratic and participatory foundations. This experience, which emerged amid the collapse of central state institutions, has proven its ability to achieve security and stability and promote coexistence among diverse ethnic and religious groups—Arabs, Kurds, Syriacs, Assyrians, and others—within a decentralized civil framework. This project is based on the principle of community partnership and fair representation, making it the most compatible model with Syria's diverse reality, compared to centralized models that have failed to encompass diversity and ensure political and social justice.

 The autonomous administration has established a decentralized democratic system that empowers communities to manage their own affairs and restores the concept of equal citizenship, free from exclusion and domination.

 Furthermore, its reliance on a comprehensive social contract that guarantees rights and freedoms and enshrines the principle of pluralism makes it a flexible constitutional framework upon which any future national project can be built. In the absence of a comprehensive social contract at the national level, the autonomous administration today appears to be the most realistic option for building a cohesive, pluralistic, and secure Syria, governed by all its people, rather than by a centralized elite that monopolizes decision-making and wealth.

ANHA