The Rule of Law Was Abused in Syria For Decades. Can It Change Now?

Over the past month, Syria has undergone a significant shift. The Assad dynasty and the Ba’athist Regime, which had ruled the country for over fifty years, finally came to an end when rebels captured Damascus. The capture of the city also marked the end of the over decade-long Syrian civil war. The aftermath of this civil war naturally has significant consequences on a social, economic, and political level. This article, however, seeks to analyse the legal ramifications of Syria’s new government both internally and abroad.

Before examining the legal ramifications of the new Syrian state, it is first important to understand how the legal system operated under the Assad dynasty. The Assad dynasty came to power when Hafez al-Assad launched a bloodless military coup to take control of Syria’s Ba’athist party. Hafez then embarked on a “corrective movement,” which involved constantly exploiting the legal system for his benefit. This legal exploitation included ordering the mass arrest and torture of those who opposed him, limiting electoral nominations, and ruling under a “state of emergency” (in essence martial law). His son and successor Bashar al-Assad was not much better. In fact, the minimum age requirement for the presidency in Syria was 40, but since Hafez died when Bashar was only 34, the Syrian Constitution was amended to lower the age requirement to 34. Bashar then went on to utilise many of the same tactics his father did, limiting electoral opposition to run unopposed, arresting hundreds of intellectuals in the now infamous Damascus Winter, and taking control of the media to spread pro-Assad propaganda. 

The Assad dynasty’s control of Syria also had an added element of legal difficulty because it was a tyranny of the minority. Although Syria is a Sunni-majority Arab nation, the Assad family are Alawites. Alawism is a complex religion that cannot be fully explained in an article of this length, and they aren’t really considered a sect of Shi’a or Sunni Islam, but what is important is that they are more aligned with and broke off from Shi’a Islam and make up between 10-13% of Syria’s population. This makes them a minority in Syria, but a sizable one, and the rule of the Assad dynasty has seen a clear favoritism towards the religious/ethnoreligious group. This favoritism manifested in both political influence and appointments and in economic influence, giving Alawites a near monopoly in certain industries. This favoritism was yet another example of how the legal system in Syria was exploited for the benefit of a minority ruling group. However, it is crucial to not take this as an absolutes, many Alawites still spoke out against the Assad regime and have become especially vocal in recent years, and Hafez al-Assad would sometimes attend Sunni mosques to curry favour with Syria’s Sunni majority.

In summary, Syria under the Assad dynasty was a regime that frequently violated the rule of law and instead ruled by law, creating a special class of citizens and exploiting constitutional provisions to consolidate their power. Whenever the Assad dynasty was challenged by the very law they exploited, they would just rewrite it to suit their interests, creating a world in which the legal system was a tool of enforcement instead of accountability. The reason it was crucial to explain this system is because it helps understand what Syria’s new government is promising and why. 

First, on a broader level, Syria’s constitution has been regularly exploited historically to benefit the ruling caste. Syria’s transitional government has vowed to amend this by creating a judicial and human-rights committee to reevaluate and amend Syria’s constitution. Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the leader of Syria’s largest rebel group, has also directly pledged to protect minority groups. Julani has also stressed the importance of creating stable and foundational institutions which are able to serve as a check on the government and prevent another totalitarian state from rising. There have been some concerns about Julani’s history, as he has in the past worked under Al-Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization which advocates for a global Islamic caliphate and the elimination of all enemies of Islam. Julani’s past connection to Al-Qaeda is certainly worrying, but Julani has since broken away from Al-Qaeda and the past few years have seen him moderate his views. During the capture of Aleppo Julani even made it a point to ensure that the rights of the Christian minority were upheld. Whether this is a genuine change or just a calculated move to garner international support is difficult to ascertain, but there is at the very least hope that Julani’s statements signal towards a positive future.

The dust has still not settled in Syria. As of now, the constitution is suspended and the nation has seen potential threats to its sovereignty from both Israel and Turkey. However, the recent actions of the state such as increasing police recruitment, amending the constitution to be more equal and less exploitable, and focusing on building strong institutions do point to a future where Syria can be a nation where the rule of law is cherished rather than trampled. All we can do at this point is stay cautiously optimistic and see how Syria’s legal transformation unfolds.