By Dr. Adnan Bozan

The Syrian tragedy does not lie merely in the fact that the country has emerged from a long and devastating war. Rather, it lies in the fact that Syria now stands on the threshold of a new kind of conflict—one fought not only with tanks and artillery, but with ideas planted in people's minds long before they are transformed into rifles in their hands. Every war begins with a narrative, every massacre begins with an idea, and every authoritarian project begins by convincing people that the homeland has room only for those who resemble themselves.

The gravest danger confronting Syria today is not the physical tents erected here and there, but the meaning they embody. These are not merely protest encampments or fleeting expressions of public anger. They represent a political declaration that chauvinism has returned to the Syrian stage, after many Syrians believed it had been buried with the collapse of the previous regime. These are tents that seek shelter not beneath the homeland, but beneath hatred; they seek not partnership, but perpetual hostility. They do not raise the banner of the state, but the banner of domination.

The painful irony is that the revolution which began to overthrow the one-party state now finds itself facing the danger of reproducing the very same one-party mentality under a different guise. Faces may change, but the underlying idea remains the same: monopolizing truth, monopolizing patriotism, and monopolizing the authority to define who qualifies as a "true Syrian" and who must remain standing at the margins of the state, waiting for recognition of his very existence.

The Ba'athist regime has fallen, but Ba'athism as a way of thinking has not. What is the value of toppling a statue if the mentality that erected it remains intact? What is the meaning of speaking about a transitional period if it is administered with the very same instruments that sustained decades of exclusion and monopoly? Authoritarianism does not reside only in presidential palaces; it also resides in a mindset that considers power the natural right of one group over all others, and views diversity as a defect to be eliminated rather than a reality to be respected.

A state that fears acknowledging its own diversity is not a confident state; it is a state insecure about its own identity. Likewise, a government that regards demands for equal rights as a threat to national unity is, knowingly or not, admitting that its unity is so fragile that it fears even a single constitutional provision or one additional seat at the negotiating table.

More alarming still is that chauvinistic rhetoric no longer hides behind slogans. It is now practiced openly and reproduced politically, socially, and through the media, as though the country had learned nothing from years of bloodshed. Instead of establishing tents for national dialogue, tents are erected to incite hostility. Instead of raising the banners of reconciliation, banners of ethnic mobilization are unfurled. Instead of seeking a new social contract, politics increasingly appeals to one of humanity's oldest instincts: the fear of the other.

Exploiting ethnic and tribal loyalties is not a clever political strategy; it is a delayed act of national suicide. Every authority that believes it can manipulate hatred for short-term political gain will sooner or later discover that it has unleashed a force beyond its control. Hatred recognizes no lasting loyalty, and the fire ignited to burn a neighbor's house inevitably spreads to the house that kindled it.

As for the Kurdish question, it continues to be treated, despite all these transformations, as though it were a file to be postponed indefinitely—as if the aspirations of millions of citizens were merely a secondary detail that could be ignored, delayed, or circumvented. What makes the situation even more tragic is that constitutional recognition of Kurdish national rights is still portrayed by some as a political concession rather than a constitutional entitlement. Yet modern states are measured not by their ability to subjugate their constituent communities, but by their ability to embrace them all within a just constitutional and legal framework.

Ignoring the genuine representation of Syria's national components, or attempting to replace it with selective and symbolic representation, does not create partnership; it merely constructs fragile facades that collapse at the first serious crisis. Legitimacy is not built through selective appointments or the distribution of positions. It derives from respecting the political and social will of the communities that are meant to participate in shaping the country's future.

Nor is it wise for any government to believe that it can build a stable state upon foundations of mistrust, resentment, and exclusion. Political history teaches us that states do not collapse because they recognize diversity; they collapse because they deny it, attempt to erase it by force, ignore it through legislation, or distort it through propaganda.

Today, Syria does not need more tents that divide its people into opposing camps. It needs one tent alone: the tent of the homeland. A homeland governed neither by the mentality of victors and vanquished, nor by the tyranny of majoritarian domination, nor by narrow partisan or sectarian loyalties, but by a new political covenant founded upon citizenship, equality, and constitutional recognition of the country's ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity as a source of strength rather than a pretext for division.

Syria has paid an enormous price for allowing chauvinism to wear the cloak of the state for decades. Today, there are those who appear determined to dress it in new garments while changing only the names. Yet changing slogans does not alter realities, and replacing flags does not give birth to a new homeland. A nation cannot be built by excluding its partners, branding dissenters as traitors, or manufacturing internal enemies whenever politics fails to produce solutions.

The fundamental question facing Syrians today is not, "Who governs Damascus?" Rather, it is, "How should Syria be governed?" A state that replaces the dictatorship of individuals with the dictatorship of identity, or substitutes the monopoly of one political party with the monopoly of one social or ideological group, has not broken with the past—it has merely reproduced it in a different form.

In conclusion, there is no third path between the tents of war and the tent of the homeland. Either chauvinism prevails, leaving Syria with nothing but maps of fear, revenge, and fragmentation, or the project of a pluralistic democratic state prevails—a state in which every citizen, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or identity, feels that this homeland bears his or her name as well, rather than belonging exclusively to a single group that claims a monopoly over history, geography, and patriotism.

Add comment