"We learn from history that no one learns from history," German philosopher Friedrich Hegel said. It is as if this statement was written specifically for Islamists whenever they come to power, as they continue to reproduce the same mistakes, as if the lesson has never been understood.
History is repeating itself! The recently issued Syrian Transitional Constitutional Declaration took me back 12 years and a few months, specifically to November 22, 2012, when Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi (who came to power after elections whose integrity was questionable) issued a "constitutional declaration" that effectively placed him above accountability, assuming the role of a ruler with divine authority. That declaration was merely the beginning of his dramatic downfall, which accelerated the failure of the Islamists in governing Egypt. Nevertheless, Islamists remain determined to repeat the experiment, despite its catastrophic outcomes being evident not only in Egypt but across many Arab nations. The Arab citizen gains nothing from them but destruction, devastation, and the fragmentation of his country.
A constitution or a divine mandate?
In Syria, the committee that drafted this transitional constitution acted as if it had been entrusted with a divine command. The texts they drafted for President Ahmad Al-Shara, not as a head of state but rather as a shadow of God on earth – his exclusive representative, and the holder of the seals of heaven and hell. In the background, the militias of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham were carrying out their terror against Alawites and Syrian Christians in coastal areas a scene that only lacks the beating of drums and jihadist chants to be complete in its ritualistic nature. As if the transitional constitution was not written in ink but rather baptized in Syrian blood.
Controversial points in the Syrian transitional constitution
The constitutional declaration grants President Ahmad Al-Shara absolute powers, including appointing one-third of the members of the People's Assembly.
unelected contains several articles that have sparked outrage among large segments of Syrians, particularly non-Sunni components, due to its blatant contradiction of the principles of citizenship and democracy, neither of which is mentioned even once in the declaration.
"In the Islamist doctrine, democracy is considered an act of blasphemy because it means that the people govern themselves. According to their approach, derived from Quranic verses, prophetic traditions, and Islamic history, what has been ingrained in their minds is that their authority is granted by God, not by humans."
The most contentious points include:
- Granting the president absolute powers as the shadow of God on Earth
The constitutional declaration grants President Ahmad Al-Shara absolute powers, including appointing one-third of the members of the People's Assembly and abolishing the position of Prime Minister, effectively making him the sole controller of the executive authority without any real oversight. The inability of parliament to hold the president accountable creates an environment that is "purely fascist, with clear theocratic overtones."
- Islamic jurisprudence as the primary source of legislation
The declaration states that Islamic jurisprudence is the primary source of legislation, raising concerns among non-Muslim minorities and other Islamic sects, especially since the text does not specify a particular school of thought, leaving room for the dominance of strict Salafi interpretations. The requirement that the president of the republic must be a Muslim, effectively excluding any non-Muslim candidates from running for office, constitutes a blatant violation of the principle of equal citizenship.
"It is important to note that he considers himself the victorious ruler (al-hakim al-mutaghallib), and therefore, he will select classical jurists who align with his beliefs and the sentiments of his fellow jihadists in Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham."
- Exclusion of non-Sunni components
The declaration contains no explicit recognition of Syria's ethnic and religious diversity, making it a constitution of singular identity that disregards the presence of Kurds, Druze, Christians, Shia, and others who are essential parts of Syria's social fabric. The Syrian Democratic Council (SDF) rejected the declaration, considering it a regression from previous agreements and a step toward excluding Kurds rather than integrating them into the political process.
Parallels with Morsi's 2012 constitutional declaration
What is happening in Syria today is eerily reminiscent of Mohamed Morsi's 2012 constitutional declaration, where clear similarities emerge:
- Absolute control over power
In Egypt, Morsi granted himself extraordinary powers and shielded his decisions from judicial review. In Syria, the new declaration grants Ahmad Al-Shara extensive unchecked powers, free from parliamentary oversight.
- The Death of democracy
Morsi's declaration eliminated the judiciary's ability to review presidential decisions. In Syria, the new system weakens parliament and strips it of the ability to hold the president accountable, turning it into a "symbolic council."
- Exclusion instead of pluralism
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood sought to impose their exclusive vision of society and the state, ignoring political and intellectual diversity. In Syria, the transitional declaration entrenches an exclusionary approach, particularly against religious and ethnic minorities.
Objections from non-Sunni groups
The rejection of this declaration came not only from traditional political opposition but also from groups that felt targeted and marginalized:
Druze: They considered the declaration as entrenching sectarian power and threatening their political and social marginalization.
Kurds: They viewed it as an attempt to exclude them, especially given the lack of recognition of their cultural and political rights.
Christians: They rejected the religious nature of the constitution, which turns Syria into a religious state rather than a civil one, potentially exposing them to further discrimination and persecution.
Whenever Islamists are given the opportunity to govern a country, instead of adopting democracy, they quickly create a new dictator who dons a religious cloak to justify their absolute power. The Syrian constitutional declaration is nothing more than a repetition of previous attempts, such as the 2012 Morsi declaration, where military tyranny is replaced by a more comprehensive religious tyranny.
It seems that Arab countries are condemned to choose between the Islamist cancer, which spreads ruthlessly to swallow the state and society, or the military authoritarian plague, which oppresses without mercy. Between these two, the Arab citizen remains the eternal victim.
Mohamed Saad Khiralla
The writer is a political analyst specializing in Middle East affairs and Islamic movements, an opinion writer, and a member of the Swedish PEN Association. He lives in Sweden.
