A Decade in Power, part 2: Still the “Kingdom of Silence”. Internal Politics under Bashar al-Assad

Ten years after Bashar al-Assad ascended to power, oppression might not be as violent as during the dark years of his father’s rule. People are more vocal and there are less prisoners of conscience. But disregard for human rights and the absence of a real political life continue.

In a widely circulated article written shortly after the death of the then Syrian ruler Hafez al-Assad, the prominent Syrian political activist, Riad Al-Turk, who had spent eighteen years as a prisoner of conscience in solitary confinement, asserted that Syria could not remain the “kingdom of silence”.

His underlying message was that the time when criticism of authorities was severely sanctioned was nearing an end.

Now ten years following this resolute declaration, many fear that Turk’s expectations are far from being realised.

A decade after Bashar al-Assad, the son of Hafez, took power, human rights advocates, political dissidents and civil society might not be as violently oppressed as they were during the dark years of his father’s rule, but the internal political situation in the country remains bleak.

Activists regularly face intimidation, unlawful arrests and long jail sentences or are subjected to travel bans and other measures aimed at stifling freedom of expression.

The Tight Grip of the Mukhabarat

Today, estimates of human rights organisations put the number of political dissidents in Syrian jails at around 3,000. But obtaining an accurate figure is impossible since the government refuses to reveal the number of inmates. The vast majority of political detainees are activists with Islamist backgrounds. Then come Kurdish opponents and other prisoners of conscience imprisoned for criticising the government.

The powerful and numerous branches of the security apparatus keep a tight grip on civil society preventing individuals who are not loyal to the ruling Baath party from participating actively in the public sphere.

These long years of repression have crippled the opposition preventing it from having any popular outreach. The fact that the media is tightly controlled by the state makes it hard for dissidents to communicate information to the masses even though opposition websites are trying to circumvent that reality.

Today, a number of factors still hinder any form of political activity that is not devoted to Assad and his entourage. An emergency law active since 1963 coupled with harsh penal code articles are instrumental in sending dissidents to jail for merely writing an opinion piece or giving critical interviews to foreign television media.

In the current year alone, two prominent defenders of human rights, Muhanad al-Hasani and 78-year-old Haytham Al-Maleh received jail sentences for merely criticising authorities.

The state security court continues to issue unlawful verdicts against critics accusing them of “weakening the national sentiment” or “spreading false information”.

Political groups – the few clandestine ones that exist- are vulnerable because Syria still does not recognise any political group other than the Baath or parties operating under its umbrella. Also, human rights organisations and other advocacy groups are denied licences by the authorities and subsequently forced to operate illegally.

In a report released recently, the New York- based Human Rights Watch noted that the new Syrian president did not take any real steps to promote transparency or democracy in his country. “Without reforms… ..Assad’s legacy will merely extend that of his father: government by repression,” the report concluded.

With the absence of any real insight into the policy of the inner circles of the ruling party, it is difficult to understand the authorities’ rationale behind the continued state of repression.

Some analysts say the foreign threats faced by Syria over the last decade – from the invasion of Iraq to the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri and the standoff between the West and Iran – drove the regime to increase repression in order to maintain stability.

Others speak of a struggle for power between conservative “old guard” and reformists who have so far failed to bring forward more than economic reforms.

Damascus Spring

Back in 2000, the mood following the death of Hafez and the succession of his son after a series of constitutional amendments was one of uncertainty. To many observers, Syria becoming a de facto monarchical republic was a worrisome sign, but hopes were pinned on the new British-educated eye–surgeon to usher in freedoms.

The first months of Assad’s rule in 2000 were times of new beginnings and hope for civil society. In what has become known as the “Damascus Spring”, tens of discussion forums sprouted in private homes all over the country.

Intellectuals and later freed political dissidents discussed reforms to the country’s political, economic and social situation. One activist from that period said the authorities were surprised to see how popular the movement had become in a short period of time.

Civil society, he said, was erupting with vigour after years of repression. “It is true that the forums did not pose a real threat to the regime, which had actively worked over the decades on dismantling any civil or political activity, but the government got eventually afraid of these few voices calling for change,” he added.

During the 1970s and 1980s, security officials practiced extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances to silence any dissent. In February 1982, the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama to crush a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood, killing an tens of thousands of people, it is estimated.

The Baath party controlled all forms of civil life from unions to parliament.

Although hundreds of political dissidents were released in the early 2000, the government quickly grew intolerant of the peaceful calls for reform that had brought under one umbrella all political groups, Kurds, secularists, Islamists and others.

In August 2001, the authorities conducted a large crackdown on forums, forcing them to close down and throwing tens of their leaders in jail. Despite this serious blow, a few dissidents tried to keep the movement alive. “Committees for the revival of civil society in Syria” took up the task of spreading concepts of democracy in society at a smaller scale.

But the next wave of repression came in 2003 as a result of the American invasion of Iraq.

Probably feeling an existential threat, the authorities used the pretext of the “external danger” to smother more harshly voices of dissident, said one political analyst.

“The regime manipulated the national sentiment [of Syrians] linking democracy with [the end of] occupation and instability in Iraq,” he said.

Increased Repression

Nevertheless, different forms of dissent continued. For the first time in decades, between 2003 and 2006, hundreds of Syrians staged sit-ins on a handful of occasions in front of parliament, the state security court and the justice palace. The protests called for more freedoms, the release of political prisoners and the end of the state of emergency. These moves were violently crushed but their mere occurrence was significant considering that any gathering of more than seven people is prohibited in Syria.

The year 2005 was an important turning point. The assassination of Hariri, which was widely blamed on Damascus, provoked Syrian opponents of the regime to intensify their activities, judging that the government’s foreign policies were leading to the country’s isolation regionally and internationally.

In October, the Damascus Declaration for National Democratic Change emerged as the large coalition of opposition groups, and called for democratic change in the country. That year intellectuals signed a petition, the Beirut Damascus Declaration, for healthy relations between the two neighbouring countries.

The government reacted harshly by sentencing the prominent Syrian intellectual, Michel Kilo, among a number of other signatories of the declaration. In November, Kamal Labwani, a civil rights activist, was jailed for 12 years, after he returned from trips to Europe and America where he met officials and openly criticised the regime.

Although earlier that year the Baath had promised to allow the creation of political parties and limit the extent of the emergency law, their pledges were never fulfilled. To the contrary, activists said that after 2005 new forms of intimidation started, like the dismissal of dissidents from government jobs and travel bans.

In 2007, Assad’s term was renewed for seven additional years in a flawed referendum, in which 97 per cent of voters are said to have approved of his presidency.

During that year, Damascus was also emerging from international and Arab isolation and some hoped this would have a positive impact on internal developments.

But an emboldened Syrian regime proceeded to increase arrests against activists. Twelve members of the Damascus Declaration were given two-and-a-half-year prison terms.

The lists of activists barred from leaving the country got bigger; some 400 people are affected by the sanction.

“The regime [saw] western openness as a green light to repress civil society,” said Mohamad al-Abdallah, a Syrian dissident in America, who was jailed twice in Syria.

A Hole in the Wall of Silence

Today, reports by international human rights organisations classify Syria as one of the most repressive countries in the world.

Some, like Abdallah, believe that the international community has been more attentive to the internal situation in Syria thanks to the “sacrifices of dissidents inside the country” and the activities of opposition abroad.

But although the international community regularly condemns unlawful arrests in Syria, they do not apply enough pressure on the regime to change its internal repressive policies, others say.

An interesting development this year was the government’s recognition of the importance of civil society in the development process.

Led by the first lady, Asmaa al-Assad, Damascus hosted an international conference on development in Syria for the first time, in January. But many see this initiative as a manoeuvre to show to give the inaccurate impression that Syria is promoting civil society.

Grassroots civil society groups working on social, economic and political issues are marginalised by the government. Continuous pressure from the security branches as well as arrests have led to the breakdown of most civil society initiatives.

Some see that change in Syria can only happen with a total overhaul of a regime “built on corruption and monopoly over power and wealth”.

Others believe that the Syrian opposition needs to re-evaluate its tactics and learn from the experiences of the past ten years to gather up its strengths again.

Asked whether Syria is still a “kingdom of silence,” one political analyst answered rather optimistically.

“A hole was made in the wall of silence and this cannot be overlooked,” he said. “The masses of prisoners of conscience thrown in jail just show the determination of Syrian dissidents to fight for their freedoms and rights at any price.”

But he added that unless the dissident movement becomes more popular, change will be hard to accomplish.