The use of derogatory language in Syria is no longer merely an outlet for anger or fleeting emotion. It has become an entrenched structure shaping how some Syrians speak and behave. On social media platforms, the language of debate has been reduced to a tool of humiliation and exclusion, turning public discussion into an arena for settling scores rather than a space for building collective awareness.
This raises urgent questions: How can Syrians rebuild a shared sense of identity? How can the concept of citizenship be restored? These issues are no longer cosmetic but existential for Syria’s future.
In a wide-ranging interview with +963, Syrian politician and diplomat Bashar Al-Haj Ali discussed the role of the country’s intellectual elites in curbing verbal violence, the rise of hate speech following political failures, and the challenges of transforming a fractured public discourse.
How can Syrians rebuild collective awareness given the widespread use of derogatory terms on social media?
Collective awareness cannot be rebuilt through slogans. It requires a long and complex process that begins with education and extends to political and media discourse.
We live in an open digital space dominated by social media, where words have become daily weapons. Syrians are exposed to, and use, terms that reduce others to demeaning labels. This is not superficial; it reflects accumulated repression and deep polarisation.
The challenge is to transform these platforms from negative outlets into spaces for producing a new language of recognition and respect. Unless political and media actors adopt a responsible discourse, efforts to rebuild collective awareness will remain incomplete.
Who is responsible for the spread of hate speech in Syria after the fall of the former regime?
Responsibility is multi-layered. It is not just the absence of strong opposition or alternative institutions, but decades of political and social repression.
Divergent visions of post-revolution Syria, the dominance of one faction in the transitional phase, and the retreat of others into narrow circles all contributed to fertile ground for hate speech. One side felt victorious, others felt excluded.
This is a society long denied normal political life. When the historical moment came, it lacked the tools to manage differences and reverted to the vocabulary of exclusion and revenge.
Also read: Sectarian Identity in Syria in Search of Safety
What role should Syria’s intellectual elites play? Have some of them joined the wave of hate speech themselves?
Elites must play a doubled role. They form the bridge between ideas and society, between popular anger and political framing.
Yet the reality is that some elites have succumbed to the wave of hate speech, whether to secure personal legitimacy or to compensate for political weakness. Others have clung to rational discourse but found themselves marginalised.
This raises an ethical question: is the role of the elite to interpret and refine public sentiment, or to amplify division? At moments of historical change, elites carry great weight. If they lack the courage to swim against the tide, they lose their function as filters of collective awareness.
Is Syrian society trapped in a “narrow mould” of sectarian, ethnic or tribal identities at the expense of national identity?
Syrian society has long been shaped by sect, ethnicity and tribe. But this is not destiny, it is the product of decades of political and social suppression and the absence of citizenship as a lived reality.
The previous regime deepened these divides through policies of discrimination and separation. When the revolution erupted, all these fractures surfaced at once.
National identity was not absent, but it never crystallised into a modern social contract. Today’s conflict reflects a struggle between narrow affiliations and the search for a wider national horizon. The future depends on whether Syrians can transform pain into an opportunity to forge a shared identity that transcends divisions.
Is it necessary to establish a national lexicon as part of a serious transitional justice project, free from abusive terminology?
Yes. Language is not innocent; it carries collective memory and shapes identity. Creating a national lexicon is not simply a linguistic project but a step towards transitional justice.
It would distinguish between criticism and insult, disagreement and demonisation. Other countries provide models: in Rwanda, after the genocide, hate terms were banned and alternative language was introduced in schools and the media.
We need something similar: not censorship, but collective awareness that refuses verbal degradation. A national lexicon could normalise respect and recognition, laying the groundwork for a shared, unpoisoned memory.
Also read: The Theology of Political Purity in Syria: Takfir of Modernity
Did the failure to manage political differences lead to the rise of hate speech? What are the solutions?
Yes. The failure to manage political differences has been one of the main drivers of hate speech. Political disputes hardened into existential identity divides, with each side seeing the other as a threat rather than a partner.
This is the legacy of a missing democratic tradition. Solutions start with creating genuine spaces for dialogue, integrating civil society, and reviving a political culture that prioritises people over slogans.
A legal framework is also essential. After the fall of authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe, laws were imposed to counter racism and incitement. Germany after the Second World War offers another example, where law was used to reset public discourse. These experiences show that tackling hate speech requires not only moral appeals but enforceable rules.
What role do young people and influencers play today?
Young people are Syria’s greatest source of energy, but also the most vulnerable to distortions in the digital discourse. They inhabit an unregulated space where depth is often mixed with superficiality.
Influencers bear particular responsibility. Instead of promoting values of citizenship and openness, some produce shallow or divisive content. Others genuinely attempt to foster a different awareness.
The challenge is to redirect youth energy from passive consumption to critical production. Influencers should become partners in shaping awareness, not simply traders in likes and adverts.
And what about the chaotic state of today’s media?
Media anarchy is one of the main reasons hate speech persists. The digital sphere is awash with conflicting information and provocative content, producing collective disorientation and blurring the line between reporting and incitement.
The answer is not censorship, but professional standards: verifying sources, distinguishing between news and opinion, and ensuring legal accountability for those spreading hate content.
Media literacy is equally vital. Citizens must learn to navigate the digital space critically. This is how chaos can be transformed into a safer environment—one where rational, responsible discourse flourishes without undermining free expression.
Final thoughts?
We are in a transitional moment; not only political, but also social and moral. Syrians face a philosophical as well as practical question: do they wish to remain confined within sect, ethnicity and tribe, or aspire to a unifying concept of citizenship?
Nation-building is not merely about redrawing borders or replacing a regime. It is about re-founding the moral framework that binds individuals to the community.
If Syrians fail this ethical test, any political solution will remain fragile and liable to collapse.
