DEPOSING ASSAD WAS MORE THAN A REGIME CHANGE. The cautious euphoria over the departure of Bashar al-Assad from Syria hides something of greater significance. Assad was the last of the Baathist dictators who in principle were a toxic
mix of secular Arab nationalism and Eastern Bloc-style socialism opposed to
fundamentalist Islam.
Baathism, its ideological pretensions notwithstanding, lacked the inherent perceived legitimacy of Arab monarchies which were thus able to provide their peoples with a sufficient dose of freedom — freedom which, in turn, allowed for a measure of civil society that the Baathist regimes lacked. However, under their rule, ethnic and religious minorities were protected from the excesses of Islamic fundamentalism. Not any more.
Baathism has a perilous history. Founded in Syria in the 1940s it took two irreconcilable forms which took control in Syria and Iraq. It had organisations throughout the Middle East/North African states but only achieved power in Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
Nasser was a Baathist ruling Egypt until he was replaced by Sadat who moved away from Baathist principles towards Islamism in exchange for its support. But his peace treaty with Israel was too much for the Islamists, who assassinated him in 1981. The increasing power of Islamists peaked with the Arab Spring in 2011 and the popular election of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate Mohamed Morsi. His autocratic excesses led to a revolt with the Islamists quashed and a more moderate president, Abdel Fatah el-Sisi, elected with 96% of the vote. However, Egypt is said to have returned to authoritarianism since then.
Gaddafi ruled Libya following his success in a coup d’état against King Idris in 1969. While claiming no party affiliation, he transformed Libya into a new socialist republic and support for Arab unity with Egypt and Syria. He also advocated for sharia law and Islamic values, though their incompatibility with modern economic and social relations meant they were not enforced. His increasing eccentricity, corruption and an autocratic personality cult funded by oil revenues, he was killed in 2011 by military rebels who formed during the Arab Spring. While Islamic fundamentalism does not have a strong hold in Libya, its increasing influence has created a morality police crack-down, enforcing Islamic principles. Extremist groups, once in fear of Gaddafi, are now strengthening their foothold. In general, Libya’s governance is under severe stress.
Syria’s tyrant Assad has been now been deposed by Islamists albeit presenting a moderate façade. It seems inevitable that a steady increase in Islamist influence will see a greater application of Koranic principles in both government and civil society. Its effects from throughout the Middle East makes a Syrian move to fundamentalism very likely.
From an Islamic conquest perspective, eleven of the 21 Mediterranean states are Muslim majority, with a population percentage of 61%. All of them are increasing in Islamic population and militancy. Don't place bets on Syria being a moderate exception.
