By Ahmad Helwani, PhD
In response to the article written by Hilal Khashan titled “Why Syria Remains Ungovernable,” published in Geopolitical Futures on December 26, 2024, it is clear that it contains numerous historical and methodological errors that must be corrected, as well as conclusions unsupported by sufficient evidence. Below is a response:
First: Historical Errors in the Article
1. Syria’s Independence
The author claims that Syria gained independence in 1943, which is a historical error. Syria achieved full independence on April 17, 1946, the day the last French troops withdrew from the country. This fundamental mistake highlights a lack of understanding of Syria’s historical context.
2. Demographics and Sectarian Composition
The author states that Sunnis constitute 60% of Syria’s population, which is inaccurate. According to reliable sources, such as the CIA World Factbook, Sunnis make up approximately 74% of the population*. This omission undermines the credibility of the analysis presented in the article.
3. Diversity in the Region
The claim that Syria is the most diverse country in the Middle East overlooks clear facts. Lebanon, for example, is far more diverse, with an officially recognized sectarian makeup of 18 distinct communities. A comparison with Lebanon reveals that the article ignores clear examples from the region.
Second: Methodological Errors in the Article
1. Framing Diversity as a Negative Factor
The author presents Syria’s ethnic and sectarian diversity as the primary reason for its alleged ungovernability, which is a biased and unscientific conclusion. There are many examples of diverse countries that have achieved political stability, such as Switzerland and the United States, where diversity has been a source of strength rather than weakness.
2. Bias Against the Syrian Opposition
The assumption that Al-Julani or any opposition figure is incapable of achieving peace or governance is subjective and lacks objectivity. This prejudgment reflects personal opinion rather than analysis supported by facts or experience.
3. Ignoring Syria’s Democratic Periods
The author disregards the era of Shukri al-Quwatli and the democratic phase of Syria after independence, when the country was governed under a parliamentary and democratic system before military interventions. This omission creates a misleading impression of Syria’s history.
4. Claiming Alawites and Druze Are Not Arabs
The assertion that Alawites and Druze are not Arabs is a significant error. The majority of Alawites and Druze identify as part of the Arab identity, as affirmed by their cultural and linguistic affiliations.
Third: Additional Points Worth Addressing
1. Population and Sectarian Statistics
The article either ignores or downplays the complexities of the Syrian conflict, overly emphasizing sectarian divisions while failing to consider geopolitical influences or foreign interventions, which have played a significant role in complicating the crisis.
2. Bias Against Rural Syrians
Describing rural Syrians in negative terms (such as uncivilized) reflects an unwarranted class bias. Historically, rural Syria has been an economic and cultural backbone, and it cannot be held solely responsible for political crises.
3. Misrepresentation of Political and Social History
The article paints a grim and unrealistic picture of Syrian society, ignoring periods of political prosperity and peaceful coexistence among sects during various phases of Syria’s history.
Conclusion
The article suffers from clear historical and methodological inaccuracies and obvious biases in interpreting events and addressing Syria’s demographic composition. A proper response to such articles must present the facts clearly and highlight the contradictions in the analysis. Syria is not “ungovernable” because of its diversity but due to external interventions and oppressive policies that have weakened national institutions.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق