Washington – North-Press Agency
Marah Bukai – Advisor in Foreign Affairs
The closing statement of the Riyadh 2 Conference, which was held in the Saudi capital in November 2017, was marked by the presence of the countries sponsoring the political transition in Syria, or the so-called Mini-Group, which adopted a road map for the political opposition to what the post-authoritarian state of Syria would be; I had the honor of membership in the committee drafting the statement, where its first clause stated the following: “Syrians affirm the sovereignty of the Syrian state over its entire territory on the basis of the administrative decentralization within a geopolitical unit that adopts the principle of equal citizenship.”
The opposition also committed to the statement that, “Syria will be a country with a pluralistic, democratic, civil system of government enriched by its national, religious, and sectarian diversity. It will be a multi-national and multi-cultural country whose constitution recognizes the rights of all national components, and by the privilege of their own cultures and languages, as they are national languages and cultures that represent the summary of Syrian history and civilization.”
Since the statement was formally adopted, administrative decentralization has become an acceptable political formula that has been agreed upon by all parties, and a basis for political transition under the umbrella of UN Resolution 2254, which will be implemented under regional and international sponsorship.
The present time may not be very different from the ancient political history of the Syrian nation. In 1922, the revolutionary Syrian population forced the French occupiers to declare Syria a federal state in order to prevent the division of the country. At the time, national figures were declared as representatives of the Syrian geographical regions. They were not sectarian or ethnic representatives, but rather, an administrative union among Syrian regions linked to the political center in the capital, where strategic decisions regarding Syrian domestic and foreign policy, the economy, development, and military and national security affairs were made.
The representatives of the administrations at that time were: Muhammad Ali al-Abed, Atta al-Ayoubi and Faris al-Khouri on behalf of Damascus, Taher al-Atassi of Homs, Rashid al-Barazi of Hama, Ghaleb Ibrahim Pasha and Rashid al-Mudarres of Aleppo, and other Syrian figures who are known for their patriotism and political integrity.
State sovereignty over all its territory under a system of decentralization can only be achieved within a federal system, as major countries have completed projects of establishing their modern state after their exit from fierce wars and announced a federal system among their regions, while the capital has the power of political decision decided by representatives of all regions in the Central Representatives Council.
Geopolitical statistics indicate that 40% of the world’s population lives under federal systems that guarantee the representation of all citizens without any exception or restrictions. The best example of the federal construction of modern countries are Western countries such as the United States of America, Germany, Switzerland, and other eastern countries such as Russia, Pakistan, India and Malaysia, where there are 28 federal countries.
Today, most Syrians doubt the validity of a similar situation in Syria, and some believe that simply proposing the idea of decentralization linked to the rule of a federal system is a call to divide Syria. However, they ignore the fact that countries that are today great in bridging the social and political rift have succeeded in the aftermath of major crises by resorting to this type of state administration system that allows all components of society political participation and freedom, celebrating its diversity and autonomy within the framework of national unity that protects it from attractions in case of the absence of opportunities.
In summary, Syria, that is exiting from wars made by “strangers”, has an urgent need to preserve its unity from rupture by foreign influences on its soil. Those countries that attribute its existence to the need to restore stability in fighting areas in a grafting manner, and without effective political solutions approved by the international community in UN Resolution 2254, are trying to maintain the current status of Ba'athist rule to the furthest extent possible in order to take advantage of the available Syrian decisions and capabilities in this fragile political atmosphere by calling for the participation of minorities and restoring security and eliminating terrorism, which is already the creation of tyranny.