The last time Syria held a presidential election in 2014, there was no question over whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would win — but with opposition forces in control of the country’s cities, as well as the suburbs of the capital, Damascus, his future was still far from certain.
Seven years later, after the regime’s Russian and Iranian allies intervened and turned the tide of the country’s civil war, most of Syria is now back under al-Assad’s grip.
Syrians yesterday returned to the polling booths for a sham democratic display designed to give the president a veneer of legitimacy at home and abroad.
“In 2014 the mood was different. Al-Assad could still have gone. Now Syrians still in the country, and all of us who left, know that there will not be a military overthrow,” said Suhail al-Ghazi, a researcher and nonresident fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. “The elections will be used by both the regime and Russia to show that they won, and they claim Syria is safe, so refugees can return. The election is also a factor in rehabilitating the regime among Arab countries, and maybe the Arab League.”
Syria has been ruled by the al-Assad family since 1970, after which the Syrian parliament and government were stripped of many decisionmaking powers and important positions were filled with loyalists as the Baath party worked to consolidate its status as “leader of the state and society.”
Bashar al-Assad was the third choice as successor of his father, Hafez al-Assad, as president, taking over after the latter’s death in 2000.
The mild-mannered ophthalmologist at the time said that he wanted to bring genuine political reform to the country, but ended up inflicting even more brutality than his father.
Street protests during the Arab Spring in 2011 were met with extreme violence from the police state, and spiraled into a complex and intractable civil war.
In the early days of the uprising, large numbers of military and party officials defected in protest against the government crackdown.
As the level of dissent across Syria’s stratified society began to make itself felt, the emboldened opposition in 2013 boycotted parliamentary elections.
A hollow attempt at mollifying public opinion was made in the 2014 presidential elections, when the regime allowed multiparty elections for the first time — but Bashar al-Assad unsurprisingly still won nearly 90 percent of the vote after a campaign in which one opposition candidate told voters the incumbent should remain president.
This year’s campaigning began after the Syrian Supreme Constitutional Court a week ago approved three out of 51 candidate applications: former Syrian lawmaker Abdullah Salloum Abdullah; Mahmoud Ahmad Marie, who is part of UN-sponsored peace talks in Geneva; and Bashar al-Assad himself.
All three candidates have pledged to repair the economy, which last year collapsed under the weight of war, sanctions and COVID-19, and bring the country’s 5 million refugees home.
Abdullah also made a bold promise to tackle corruption, which is systemic in Syria.
An amnesty earlier this month for more than 400 civil servants, judges, lawyers and journalists detained in a crackdown on social media dissent was widely viewed by rights advocates and the loved ones of tens of thousands of detainees still missing in regime prisons as lip-service to democratic norms before the poll.
“My brother disappeared into a regime prison in 2013. We still have no idea if he is alive or dead. They won’t give us any information,” said Saed Eido, a former resident of the country’s northern city of Aleppo who now lives in Turkey.
“All this presidential election does is whitewash crimes and maintain a dictatorship,” Eido said.
Al-Ghazi echoed these remarks, saying that the election is a useful propaganda tool for Bashar al-Assad.
“The regime has always made people do this to prove their loyalty: marching in parades, waving banners, turning up in large numbers to vote. For the new generation it’s also a chance to create a sense of community and nationhood,” he said. “Today’s young people in Syria have never experienced any political activity that is not linked to armed activity. It’s a break from their terrible reality, almost, a way for the regime to make them feel included, bring them into the system, make them feel like they belong.”
A crash in the value of Syria’s currency early last year meant that about 90 percent of people living in regime-controlled areas are now living in deep poverty. Public criticism of deteriorating living conditions is not tolerated, but even so, the situation has triggered unrest in areas of Syria where the regime’s grip is more tenuous.
In Druze-majority Sweida in the country’s southwest, election billboards erected last week were torn and splashed with red paint within hours.
The election also blackballs years of UN-backed efforts to end the war, including forming a transitional governing body and rewriting the Syrian constitution to hold free and fair elections subject to international monitoring.
“Many civilizations, invaders and colonizers have passed through Syria, but today they are just remnants of the past and historical sites,” Eido said.
“The regime is not there to rule, just to steal the livelihoods of its own people. That’s why, like the others, it won’t last. It can’t sustain itself for ever,” he said.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
Watching news footage of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries with their counterparts across the Taiwan Strait, I could not help but feel a profound sense of temporal displacement. As a member of the generation born after the lifting of martial law and raised under modern civic education, I truly want to ask the KMT: “Do you not see who the true villain is?” In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party used a bloody civil war to drive the KMT into exile in Taiwan. In the decades that followed, it has sought to completely erase the existence
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
RSS