Alawite writer Nabil Almulhem, opposed to the Assad regime, wrote: "Some of the cries claiming secularism in the Syrian context are, at their core, nothing but sectarian frenzy."
It is well known that the former fallen Syrian regime presented itself as a socialist regime advocating for the freedom of the people. It even claimed to be one of the most fervent defenders of workers' rights, citizens and anti-imperialist activists. However, it is equally well-established that this was merely a facade, a mask hiding its true sectarian face – a mafia-like regime, more capitalist than the capitalists themselves.
Since the 1963 coup carried out by the Baath Party, the Syrian official discourse has been filled with revolutionary theories and proclamations in favor of freedom. But it was a deceitful discourse, produced and used as a smokescreen by a dictatorial power, backed by a corrupt privileged class that settled for a few crumbs of privilege in exchange for its complicity, at the expense of the homeland.
Then the revolution rose against the Assad regime. A popular revolt, born from the oppressed layers of the people, whom the Assad family had crushed, looted their wealth and controlled their economic destinies.
For 14 years, neither the left nor elitist intellectuals played any fundamental role in this revolution, except for a few sporadic and fragmented participations.
The overwhelming majority of the left, secularists and Syrian nationalists focused their criticisms on the alleged "departure of demonstrations from the mosques," forgetting that Syria is primarily an Arab Muslim country. A Marxist university professor, well-known yet, never spoke a word against the regime, merely stating: "My cause is Palestine, I do not interfere in Syrian politics." He did not even criticize the massacres committed by this regime against Palestinian refugees in the Yarmouk camp.
Arab leftists and many progressive intellectuals saw the Syrian revolution and its subsequent developments as nothing but the work of extremist groups armed by American imperialism, while carefully avoiding criticism of the Shiite armed militias that participated in the repression and terror imposed on the Syrian people.
They failed to see the youth (both men and women) from all sects, waiting outside mosques to join the protests, standing side by side with their Syrian brothers and sisters, without preconceived ideas, without concern for appearance or sectarian affiliation. Their common goal was clear: to overthrow the regime.
Some insisted on a limited reading of events, considering the revolution as a global conspiracy against the "Resistance Axis." According to them, the fall of Bashar Assad could only benefit American imperialism and Zionism. By adopting this position, they ultimately served an authoritarian regime against the masses, thereby contributing to prolonging the Syrian tragedy.
Today, after the revolution triumphed thanks to the people and the children of the nation, as the new face of Syria has risen and a national government has been formed, the majority of nationalists, leftists and secularists continue to reduce their political reading to the "Islamic" nature of the victors, the army, the ministers and of course, the president.
Many are now calling for a secular state and, why not, the adoption of the Turkish model. Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa has not rejected this, insisting that Syria is for everyone. However, in their ears, all of this seems futile, as if nothing would satisfy them unless the president were a Marxist secularist from father to son.
The moral degradation of the "new opposition" on social media has driven many users to leave Facebook and Twitter. Since the beginning of the liberation of Damascus, this "opposition" has continuously attacked every government decision, suspecting every initiative as a seed for a new dictatorship.
When al-Sharaa was proclaimed interim president of the Syrian republic, cries of illegitimacy rang out, claiming the decision was unconstitutional. When the constitutional declaration committee published a draft, the criticisms were swift, particularly from the PKK/YPG-led SDF. When the formation of the government was announced, they claimed that its members were too young, that there was only one woman, and that it did not represent all the components of Syria. The remnants of the regime tried to sow discord in the coastal region, and violations occurred during these events. The president apologized and formed two committees to investigate the issue and identify those responsible, but the criticism did not cease. Calls to "protect the Alawites" emerged and of course, they found a considerable echo in Western and Israeli media.
Such criticism could have been considered as part of a constructive democratic debate. However, all indications suggest that it was orchestrated media campaigns, clear attempts at sabotage. This reignited the conflict between the left-wing nationalist current and the Syrian people, the same current which, once again, mobilized to reject the results of the referendum and demanded a new constitution before the elections even took place.
The most bizarre thing is that the proponents of these "progressive, secular and cultural" ideologies are merely recycling the narratives promoted by the media of the SDF militias, Iran, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, some Druze groups and even Israel. This alone is enough to explain their popular rejection and demonstrate the emptiness of their theses and critiques in light of the developments in Syria.
Syrian-Palestinian philosopher Ahmad Barqawi emphasizes that the most deeply rooted negative values in the Syrian moral universe after all these years are injustice, repression and fear. He insists, "The most dangerous aspect is the penetration of these values into the behavior of a portion of the intellectual elite who produce the discourse."
"Facebook surprised us with the moral degradation of some figures we knew, with the vulgar language of those who once shaped cultural discourse. From here, it becomes imperative that the elite first liberate itself from this moral ruin, for it has a vital role in the ethical reconstruction of the country," he said.
A survey conducted by the renowned newspaper The Economist is, in this regard, telling: The overwhelming majority of Syrians are optimistic and support al-Sharaa. This survey was conducted according to international scientific standards and covered all provinces, sects and religions of the country.
