The Syrian Revolution: Is It Worse Than Assad?
It is worse than Taliban in literate Kerala
A new step to the hill: Syrian Economy as worse as it shouldn't be
Bhutan's experiment with democracy, is it for the worse?
Renewable revolution: Is it finally here?
Oscars Bombed Worse Than Before
The Ba'ath regime in Syria is one of the region's most oppressive and everyone should be unequivocal in opposition to all Arab dictators. No sympathy should be offered to the Assad father and son. And it is because of that that I initially created the Syrian revolution with great hope.
Syria is a great country with a warm and diverse people, excellent food, stunning Arabd and Ottoman architecture and a rich history. The idea of Syrian beckons throughout the ages. The images of Syrians being slaughtered by their bloody regime is deeply distressing.
But I am having second qualms about supporting the revolution because unlike the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, this is one is being led by Islamists and is also distressingly sectarian in a region where Lebanon and Iraq are pitiful examples already.
Syria's society has seen a marked fundamental-ization in recent years, so much so that according to visitors there parts of the country now resemble Taliban-ruled Afghanistan: force head-to-toe coverings for women with religious police enforcing strict interpretations of Shari'a. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood are fanatics who would repress women and non-Muslims, and (to borrow H.L. Meckens observation about the American Puritans) anyone who wants to have fun.
Then there's the sectarian element. It would be endearing if the mosaic of Syrian life united in the name of freedom, liberty and democracy. But, alas, that does not seem to be the case with many leading elements which are unabashed in their sectarianism which goes beyond simply just expressing the belief that one sect should rule the others, but also sound threatening tones against the ruling Alawi (which themselves are partly responsible for centralizing power amongst them and breeding sectarian resentment which only reinforces narrow identities) and Christian minorities. Syria is as diverse as Lebanon and more than Iraq: Sunni Muslims, Alawi, Druze, Kurds, several Christian denominations and Armenians are only the largest groups out of nearly 20 state recognized sects. If a secular democracy for all Syrians is not palpable the best case scenario is a factional state or breakaway provinces, the worst is a Lebanese nightmare on a more massive and regionally consequential scale. The fanatical elements leading many of the demonstrations, and their rhetoric of score-settling and intolerance, do not bode well.
As oppressive as the Assad regime is, I can no longer (and I say this with great regret) support the Syrian revolution. One day I know Syria will have a revolution for which it will be better. But I fear that were this one to materialize it would be horrific for Syria and the region (a Syrian civil war may entrap Lebanon into one as well in a nation already on a razer thin sectarian balance, and Christian-Muslim relations may be harmed in Jordan likewise), and that Syrians may descend into a far worse religious fanaticism-fueled tyranny or sectarian blood bath, if not both.
The Assad regime is truly vile and oppressive, but the president is not the most brutal of tyrants, has kept the peace between Syrians and in the capital at least has obviated the Islamists and allowed Syrians personal freedom, and has enacted some reforms as of late that while not much do offer at least a lessening of regime oppression. And as much as one can say about the regime, the current alternative would be far, far worse. Assad is no democrat, but the Islamist less of one.
This is just a cold judgement one has to make, and support the survival of the regime. Nothing more but the long-term best interest of the Syrian people is at stake.
