Syria’s modern political history has been marked by complex struggles between nationalist and religious parties. These struggles gradually evolved from simple political disagreements into violent conflicts with sectarian and ideological dimensions. Although these parties raised slogans of national unity and state-building, their internal rifts and ideological contradictions deepened social and sectarian divisions. The result was direct harm to the country’s stability, culminating in political and social disintegration.
Syrian nationalist parties, led by the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, sought from their inception to present themselves as carriers of a unifying national project. Initially adopting secular ideologies, the Ba’ath soon began to employ religion for political purposes. This sparked fierce reactions from Islamic movements and transformed religion into a tool of political and sectarian struggle.
Even within the Ba’ath itself, sharp divisions emerged between leftist and nationalist factions, as well as between civilian and military wings. These splits undermined its ability to function as an inclusive party. On a wider nationalist level, the Syrian political scene after 2011 witnessed rapid growth of Kurdish parties, whose numbers rose from 17 to 36. Some joined alliances such as the Kurdish National Council and the Kurdish Democratic Alliance. For the first time, Turkmen parties also appeared, most notably the Syrian Turkmen Council, seeking to assert a national presence.
On the other side, religious parties played divergent roles. The Muslim Brotherhood emerged as one of the oldest opposition forces, while more radical groups such as Al-Nusra Front and ISIS pushed the conflict into unprecedented levels of sectarian violence. Other factions like Ahrar al-Sham attempted to present a more moderate Islamic model, yet their presence failed to ease polarization.
The struggle between nationalists and religious groups fueled sectarian fragmentation, especially during the Syrian civil war. Political disagreements morphed into identity-based bloodshed. Several regions witnessed sectarian violence, including attacks on Alawite villages along the Syrian coast and deadly clashes in Sweida between Druze and Bedouin tribes. These events propelled Syrian society into deeper division and fragmentation.
Read also: Can Syria Revive Its Political Parties?
The Historical Dimension of Party Divisions
Syrian academic Dr. Talal Mustafa, based in France, explained to +963 that party conflicts since the 1950s paved the way for the Ba’ath Party’s rise to power. The Communist Party once stood as one of the most organized forces on the political scene, but internal divisions severely weakened it, particularly after Secretary General Khalid Bakdash rejected the Syrian–Egyptian union in 1958. This stance cost the party its mass appeal and left it vulnerable before the rising nationalist currents.
Mustafa notes that the continued decline of the Communist movement allowed the Ba’ath to exploit the political vacuum. With its March 8, 1963 coup, the Ba’ath entrenched itself in power by relying on the alliance of the military and security apparatus.
According to him, Communist Party divisions were not only a product of local disagreements but also the result of external interventions. The Soviet Union backed Bakdash’s wing, while Nasser’s pan-Arabism posed a constant challenge. Meanwhile, the rivalry between Baghdad and Damascus deepened rifts within the communist factions.
Syrian writer and politician Darwish Khalifa, based in Turkey, told +963 that the Syrian leftist movement suffered a zigzagging trajectory due to these splits, turning into fragmented islands instead of a national force for change.
He explained that ideological and organizational disputes between Bakdash’s camp and its offshoots, along with Soviet influence, Nasserism, and Iraqi support for some factions, hastened fragmentation and loss of political weight. This vacuum opened the door for the military to intervene and secure Baathist dominance over the state.
Nationalists and Islamists:From Political Disagreement to Identity Conflict
Dr. Renas Farid al-Ahmad, a specialist in international relations, told +963 that Syria’s central political struggle revolved around defining the identity of the state: Should it be a secular nationalist state or an Islamic one? The conflict between the Ba’ath and Nasserists on one side, and the Muslim Brotherhood on the other, embodied this existential question.
Al-Ahmad explained that while the confrontation began as a political dispute, it soon evolved into an existential battle once the Ba’ath tightened its grip on state institutions.
He added that the Communist parties were weakened by repeated ideological and organizational splits, leaving them unable to present a unifying national alternative. External interventions compounded the crisis: Nasser’s Egypt backed nationalist movements, the Soviet Union supported communists, and Iraq fragmented opposition forces against the Baath.
This historical tension, according to al-Ahmad, laid the groundwork for the post-2011 landscape. The collapse of the traditional political order gave rise to armed religious groups, including al-Nusra and ISIS, while more moderate Islamic factions like Ahrar al-Sham sought to present alternative models.
In this climate, sectarian discourse became the benchmark for safety and survival, turning religious identity into a measure of existence in conflict zones.
Read also: Nationalist and Religious Parties in Syria: From Independence to the Post-Mandate Era
Nationalist and Religious Divisions after 2011
With the outbreak of war in 2011, Syria experienced an explosion of nationalist and religious divisions. The number of Kurdish parties doubled from 17 to 36, with some joining alliances such as the Kurdish National Council and the Kurdish Democratic Alliance. For the first time, Turkmen parties appeared, led by the Syrian Turkmen Council. Although the Ba’ath’s political influence weakened after 2011, its military wing, the Ba’ath Brigades, retained some presence in certain areas.
On the religious side, the rise of extremist groups such as al-Nusra and ISIS transformed political disputes into violent sectarian confrontations. Moderate factions like Ahrar al-Sham tried to chart a different path, but the rise of sectarian rhetoric and the use of religious identity as a survival marker turned conflict zones into battlegrounds of sectarian warfare.
Civil War and the Disintegration of the Social Fabric
The absence of a functioning state, the weakness of its institutions, and the proliferation of arms created fertile ground for political disagreements to spiral into full-scale civil war. Governorates such as Latakia and Tartus endured sectarian violence that included mass killings, looting, and the burning of homes. Sweida witnessed bloody clashes between Druze and Bedouin tribes, which resulted in thousands of deaths and the displacement of hundreds of thousands.
Regional and international interventions exacerbated the crisis. Iran, Hezbollah, and affiliated militias supported the regime. Turkey and Gulf states backed opposition factions. Russia imposed military dominance, while Israel continued its interventions to secure its interests.
Experts agree that these interventions deepened sectarian and nationalist divisions, fragmenting the social fabric and turning many regions into theaters of retaliatory violence.
Political Stability Undermined
These conflicts significantly weakened Syria’s political stability. Society became split between regime supporters and opponents, while economic and social crises worsened. As the social fabric unraveled and sectarian violence escalated, rebuilding state institutions or restoring national unity grew increasingly difficult. Despite being one of the main drivers of the crisis, the Baath entrenched its rule, presenting itself as the sole guarantor of stability.
Toward Comprehensive Reconciliation and National Dialogue
Experts argue that overcoming the crisis requires inclusive reconciliation involving all parties, not unilateral concessions. According to Mustafa, Khalifa, and al-Ahmad, Syria must adopt the principle of “no victor, no vanquished,” guaranteeing security in exchange for political participation, while creating a legal and constitutional framework that prevents the exploitation of sectarian and nationalist divisions.
They stress that reconciliation must be more than a political agreement; it must be a social and psychological process that dissolves entrenched animosities, rebuilds trust among communities, and places open dialogue and peaceful negotiation at the heart of conflict resolution. All parties should be included in shaping the future of a unified civil state.
The Syrian experience demonstrates that nationalist and religious parties, which were supposed to foster national unity, instead became sources of bloody division. Internal rifts, foreign interventions, and the failure to present a unifying national project all gave the Baath the chance to dominate the state through military and security alliances.
With the eruption of war in 2011, this trajectory deepened, plunging the country into a devastating civil war that tore apart the social fabric and weakened the state. Experts conclude that overcoming this tragedy will only be possible through comprehensive reconciliation and national dialogue that rebuilds a civil state where citizenship outweighs sectarian and nationalist affiliations.
