At every moment, in every event over the past year, Syrians have been observing what is happening in their country and asking themselves whether it is a path to success or failure. They do so because political history clearly identifies actions, arrangements, values and achievements that mark politically “successful” leaders and systems – those that produced social peace, stable public institutions, and sustainable human development. Political history offers us examples of impressive success during the foundational stages of states and political systems, when leaders were able to produce modern, consensual constitutional documents, establish platforms for national dialogue, create governance and administrative institutions loyal to society rather than rulers, maintain impartiality among different community groups, and build mechanisms of social justice in wealth distribution.
Equally, political history teaches us the repeated signs of failure – actions, decisions, and trends that inevitably pave the way to collapse, particularly in countries transitioning between political eras. Modelling failure is as consistent and predictive as modelling success.
During transitional phases, when rulers insist on centralising administration, economy, politics, and material and symbolic wealth, civil war becomes almost inevitable. According to the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), of 147 civil wars recorded between 1944 and 2001, fewer than 10 per cent occurred in countries that adopted decentralisation during their transitions. Iraq serves as an example of how centralisation can destroy emerging political experiments. After 2003, the federal, decentralised region of Kurdistan remained peaceful and achieved reasonable human development, with a stable political system compared to the rest of Iraq, which endured a long civil war along sectarian lines and became a breeding ground for brutal groups such as ISIS.
Read also: Foreign Fighters: Syria’s “War of Strangers”
Centralisation acts as a machine that destroys trust among different community identities within a state. It leads the majority to believe that certain groups aim to monopolise power and the state, using it to suppress others. This compels other groups to build defensive mechanisms that often escalate until national relationships rupture.
A second factor contributing to inevitable failure is the interference of regional powers in domestic balances and internal disputes. While the impact of regional involvement depends on the size and composition of the state, the essential determinant is the nature of the ruling elites. Every regional power seeks to dominate its neighbours, and a diverse internal population – religious, ethnic, sectarian – always a factor. States that build barriers to regional overreach maintain internal stability, while those that fail to do so are fragmented, becoming arenas for regional power struggles.
Finally, failure is linked to the vision of the rulers themselves – specifically, their imagination of the state’s political future. In all failed experiments, ambitious leaders sought a form of secure, eternal governance, believing they could isolate society from politics. Such leaders, regardless of rhetoric, make decisions and adopt behaviours that disconnect society from political life, monopolise authority, and suppress rising political actors. These actions create societies devoid of participatory politics and, inevitably, full of violence.
Today, Syrians look at their country and try to determine whether it is on a path to success or failure. History shows the patterns are clear – it is the actions and choices of those in power that shape whether a nation thrives or collapses.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of +963 association.
