It has been 5 years since the protests that protracted the culmination of the Syrian Civil War. The struggle between the Assad Regime and the large faction of rebels for balance of power, proves that anarchism will survive unless the Assad Regime is defeated. The conflicts of divided ideologies between the thesis and anti-thesis of the common polity and the regime, and how socio-economic factors had played a major hand in prolonging the worst humanitarian civil war to date.
One can clearly remember the events of hindered political stability in the Middle East, “The Arab Spring“. The demonstrations and protests first occurred in Tunisia, from peaceful to violent confrontations, which revolutionized the rationality and political prowess of the elected governance in the Arab League. In the later months, Syria and Libya, and most recently Yemen, were heaped into the inconvenience of angered civil protests, where the government and the people were involved in bloodied conflicts followed by months and months of inter-state political and violent cross-fires. Several states of the Arab League reacted to the uprisings negatively, where thousands headed to the streets on protests against the government or regime for years of unfair treatment and political corruption.
Following the capture and execution of Muammar Gaddafi by the end of October, the rebels had tasted victory over the Gaddafi government, over the rule of autocracy and creating the triumphant platform for pre-instilled democratic ideologies in Libya. However, the brutal execution under the hands of the NTC militants may seem unlawful and unconstitutional in the eyes of Gaddafi loyalists and some direct democrats. For a nation which was ruled under the autocracy of a dictator, of deep rooted authoritarian ideologies and ordained Islamic faith amongst several local tribes, the transition towards a democratic or a republic nation had to be intricately dealt with. The intervention of extra territorial countries with an abundance of democratic doctrine, assisted in the formation of a democratic Libyan government. Constitutions, electorates, party and the opposition leaders, citizens as candidates, paved the way for procedural democracy in the nation. “The Arab Spring” was the application of Western ideologies indoctrinated in the Arab masses; the rise of social-economic factors for the larger middle class who were experiencing poverty and inequality, proved otherwise that interstate conflicts were arbitrary to the predisposition of anarchism.
If we put into context of the Libyan Civil War with the Syrian Civil War, there are stark contrasts in different levels. What is the political agenda? Clearly the dissonance of Western ideologies ring a bell to the wake of “The Arab Spring”. The rhetoric effect of absorbed masses were rippled to the other nations of the Arab League. The fall of Gaddafi spelled the opportunistic behavior to take down another authoritarian. The institutional equilibrium of the regime had become “sticky” through years of autocracy rule where policies no longer benefited the majority of the polity. The case of 2 teenagers reportedly being tortured by the Syrian government for their graffiti on anti-government protests, sparked numerous civilian protests in Syria. The rest was history.
Who are the political actors? President Bashar al-Assad holds the control of the Syrian government for almost half of Syrian territory, factions of the rebel forces and ISIS. The Syrian government is backed by the Russian Federation, Putin had pledged his support in retaining the governance of Syria. The factions of the Rebel forces consists of several sectarials are backed by the United States, for democratic purposes and also, for humanitarian responses. Then we are left with ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The jihadist state had stemmed its roots back in Iraq, after the collapse of Saddam Hussein Regime, had expanded its territory through the borders of Iraq under the leadership of Baghdadi.
These 3 actors of states, indicates that the complexity of these multiple regimes and the extreme differences in political ideologies, are nonviable in forming equilibrium institutions.
The end to the devastation in Aleppo is near, the relentless air bombings by the Russian Airforce do not seem to slow down. Talks of diplomatic efforts between bilateral relations of the United States and Russia have stalled, thus increasing the impedance of humanitarian responses. There are more than 400000 casualties and almost 4.3 million Syrian Civilians being displaced. The numbers are staggering and in a span of nearly 5 years, it will increase as long as international interventions do not convene. In a rhetoric stance, the key to pushing ISIS back to Iraq is through the offensive of organised militarisation of the Syrian government. Putin will back up his reason on the Russian offensive against the rebels, after witnessing the formation of extremist jihadist groups of the likes of ISIL and Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reluctance of international intervention on the context of the Syrian War masks the rendering of political benefits, the historical consequences that ripples which creates barbaric anarchy undermining order.
The “world police” are raging war on civilian grounds where the largest population resides in Aleppo. The disregard for human lives, the bigotry amongst sectarials, and the atrocities committed by both sides, are deemed appalling with the lists of international constitutions that we adhere to everyday. It brings us to a state of nature, where human behavior are as such of animals, violence and fear occurs. The theory of the social contract precedes the diplomatic efforts in the Syrian war; the preventive chaos and brutality of Anarchism are subject to the inclination of an elected authoritarian rule, much so less on the emergence of autocracy.
Back to the words of Hobbes, “bellum omnium contra omnes”. Today, tomorrow, will it end?