Anyone studying history with a discerning eye that observes God's laws in societies and the laws of human society—which He has commanded us to do as human beings to learn lessons and as Islamically to establish remembrance—realizes that in the stages following revolutions and major transformations, complex psychological and political phenomena emerge in societies emerging from the womb of oppression and chaos. Sometimes, we even say death, which is not an acceptable expression.
Among the most important of these phenomena is the overwhelming desire to protect the state from any criticism, even if it is constructive and necessary for reform and improvement. Criticism of the government, state institutions, or even its individuals becomes a reprehensible act, met with accusations of treason, sabotage, or collaboration. This often unintended, sometimes intentional, confusion exists between the enemies of the victors, lurking in hypocrisy or appearing to be subservient, and the free, victorious sons of the revolution, who owe their allegiance solely to the idea of the homeland and the awareness of freedom, not to any individual or symbol. There is no more current manifestation of this phenomenon than the current scene in Syria after the victory of the revolution.
The Political Concept of the Phenomenon:
This phenomenon can be defined politically by what we can call "total loyalty to the state." It is a state of absolute identification with the state, stripping society of its right to criticize and question. In this case, the state transforms from a tool serving the people into a sacred entity that cannot be approached or even touched. This sanctity is often built on a backdrop of fear of chaos, terror at the mere thought of the risks of relapse, or on the narrative of the savior state or the redeeming regime, making any criticism of it a threat to the national entity itself.
This totalitarian loyalty branches out into two levels:
• At the level of central authority: The state is reduced to the existing government, with the government at the head of power and the political leadership. This produces a closed political structure that obstructs accountability mechanisms and inflates the executive role at the expense of the legislative and judicial.
• At the popular and media levels: New national narratives are constructed that link the safety of the nation to the silence of the citizen. Nationalism becomes synonymous with conformity, and criticism is viewed as a symbolic betrayal, even if it comes in the name of reform.
This situation is not much different from what totalitarian regimes throughout history witnessed, such as fascist Italy and Nazi Germany—and even formerly Ba'athist Syria. And herein lies the secret: we have not culturally rid ourselves of the remnants of this Ba'athist-Assadist phenomenon—where the nation was reduced to the person of the ruler, and the state to slogans devoid of content. However, the paradox today lies in the fact that this phenomenon stems from within societies emerging from revolutions against these concepts, which were supposed to establish a culture of accountability. Instead, some of their people, and the sons of their revolution, are attempting to reproduce tyranny in a new symbolic guise, embodied by the slogan of the new era and its altered symbols.
Hence, the most dangerous threat to the state at this stage is not criticism, but its absence. A state that is not criticized is a state that becomes a closed ideology, not an institution capable of growth and reform.
The Philosophical Roots of the Phenomenon:
This phenomenon is linked to what is known in political philosophy as "political theology," whereby the state is transformed into a superhuman entity, "the deification of the state," similar in religious logic to the image of a transcendent God who is not questioned about what he does. The state becomes the new god in modern societies, commanding unquestioned obedience and endowed with attributes of perfection and wisdom. This identification with the fetishization of the state is further heightened if yesterday's revolutionaries and today's leaders hail from a religious background grounded in holy jihad. Conversely, the individual is stripped of his position as an active, critical citizen and is re-produced as a subordinate being, finding security in his submission.
This approach was strongly criticized by the German philosopher Karl Popper in his book *The Open Society and Its Enemies*. He argued that transforming the state into a sacred entity reproduces the old myths of obedience and closes the door to reform, because any questioning constitutes an attack on the sanctity of the system. Michel Foucault also warned against the illusion of absolute knowledge of power, explaining that when the state positions itself as the sole knower, all power becomes knowledge, and all knowledge becomes a tool of oppression.
This kind of thinking produces closed political models that combat criticism as sedition and mobilize the masses in defense of infallible institutions, within a prevailing culture that views the state as something to be obeyed, not contracted with.
From an Islamic perspective that examines God's laws and the Quranic precepts, this model of deifying the state is fundamentally at odds with what can be called "political monotheism," derived from the term "monotheism" in Islam; that is, stripping human beings, whether individuals or groups, of political infallibility. Only God is not questioned about what He does, while others are "questioned" and "held accountable."
Many verses in the Quran establish this understanding, including the Almighty's statement: "Stop them, for indeed, they will be questioned." (As-Saffat: 24). This is a fundamental Quranic principle that holds every authority accountable and every political action liable to accountability. Indeed, prophethood itself is not immune from criticism, as in the verses: "Allah has pardoned you. Why did you give them permission?" (At-Tawbah: 43) and "O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful for you?" (At-Tahrim: 16), a direct reference to the necessity of correcting political decisions, even at the highest levels of prophetic purity. This is the reality of what the Prophet's Companions emulated in many famous instances, too numerous to list here. We will mention, for the sake of reminders only, the following: (The occupation of the wells in the Battle of Badr, the desire of the people of Medina to leave for Uhud despite the Prophet's desire to remain there, the digging of the Trench, the Treaty of Hudaybah and the positions of Umar and some of the Companions regarding the peace formula, and many other events that occurred during the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphate as well.)
The Qur'anic vision stems from a conception of man as a free agent, accountable and held accountable, and from a conception of the state as a tool for achieving the goals of regulating public order and civilized development based on justice, not as an absolute source of truth. Hence, any political discourse that cloaks the state in a false sanctity is, in reality, a deviation from the objectives of monotheism.
Psychological and Social Roots:
This phenomenon is deeply rooted in the collective psyche emerging from major traumas, through what can be called the "sacred rescue complex" or "savior syndrome." It's a psychosocial condition that arises when people lose their sense of existential and political security during years of oppression, war, or collapse. They look for someone to save them from the path of suffering they are enduring. Consequently, they cling to the first new authority that promises stability, projecting their emotional aspirations and sometimes their prophetic beliefs onto it more than their critical thinking. Here, the state transforms from a contractual institution into a therapeutic symbol, sanctified not because it achieves justice, but because it shields people from the specter of chaos.
This complex manifests itself through a pathological adherence to the idea that the only alternative to absolute loyalty is falling back into the abyss. Criticism becomes treason, accountability becomes a crime, and different thinking becomes a "timeless luxury." This contributes to the prevalence of collective behavior known in political psychology as "repressive internalization," where individuals censor themselves in defense of an authority that may demand not only obedience but also reverence, as countless historical examples bear out.
Socially, traditional structures (clan, sect, patriarchy, patriarchy, and patriarchy) play a role in perpetuating a culture of subordination. These structures reproduce obedience through the language of honor, loyalty, and prestige, making criticism an abnormal act that threatens familial or sectarian peace, not just political peace. Vertical relationships become the basis of political understanding, with no room for accountability but for allegiance.
Implications for the post-revolutionary scene in Syria today:
The date of December 8, 2024, a pivotal moment in Syria's history today, represents in the current Syrian consciousness a moment of birth from a difficult labor, a bright dawn of a long, heavy night, and a moment of awakening from a nightmare that has haunted Syrians for decades. Thus, a wave of popular emotion began to present the new state as the final salvation from the absurdity of destruction, and the infallible hand after the revolution's triumph. However, this emotional rush toward the state was not accompanied by the establishment of a genuine critical mindset. On the contrary, the rhetoric of prohibition against criticism returned to dominate the public sphere, but this time in the name of the revolution, not the regime.
The slogan "Don't criticize the state, the state knows best" no longer emanates from the head of state alone. It has also become echoed in people's conversations, on social media platforms, in the media, and even in the tone of some longtime opponents who have transformed into defenders of the new regime in the name of political realism.
For example, we have witnessed public campaigns of treason against journalists and activists who wrote about transitional justice and holding criminals accountable. Some of these campaigns may have targeted administrative corruption in some emerging revolutionary institutions, or questioned the economic priorities for the next phase, or called for a national debate about the shape of the new political system. These people were confronted not with arguments, but with ready-made accusations: that you are destroying the state, that you are an agent of chaos, that you have not understood the meaning of this stage.
The bitter irony is that the old Ba'athist mentality, which monopolized patriotism and criminalized criticism, has been recycled with revolutionary language. The revolution itself has become a tool of silencing rather than a space for freedom. This brings to mind Jean-Paul Sartre's statement: "Revolutions that do not produce freedom produce tyranny of a different color."
Thus, patriotism has become measured by the amount of applause, not by the depth of questioning. The fear of falling once again has become a sword hanging over every critical mind. Many intellectuals have withdrawn, civil society has become confused, and the revolution has been reduced to the slogans of the state rather than its liberating logic.
Comparative Lessons from Other Experiences:
Before commenting on this phenomenon from the perspective of Syrian society, it is important to highlight some experiences inspired by the story:
1. Germany after World War II: The model of "Vergangenheitsbewältigung" (confronting the past) was encouraged in Germany, or more precisely, "acknowledging and reconciling with the painful past." This model saw both society and the state subjected to a public and comprehensive self-criticism. German identity was reconstructed on the basis of accepting mistakes and opening the door to institutional and popular criticism. Independent accountability institutions were established, and freedom of the press and academia were given essential roles in reshaping the relationship between the citizen and the state.
2. South Africa after apartheid: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established, which encouraged the exposure of violations rather than their cover-up. Society was involved in the new justice process, and the state was held accountable through the voices of the victims, not by name. This model restored the morality of the modern state, and the concept of political authority was separated from the concept of truth.
3. Chile after Pinochet: After decades of authoritarian military rule under General Augusto Pinochet, Chile underwent a serious democratic transition based on reforming legal institutions and strengthening the role of an independent judiciary, in addition to reopening files on past violations through commissions of inquiry and accountability. The new state was not sanctified, but rather, from the outset, was subject to constant popular and constitutional scrutiny, which allowed for the development of a society more aware of the concept of political justice.
4. South Korea after Military Rule: South Korea lived for decades under authoritarian military regimes until the end of the 1980s, but it managed to transform into a democracy through widespread civil struggle and student and popular protests that led to free elections. The new state was not established as a sacred entity, but rather as a shared project open to criticism and correction. Thus, democracy there rested on the principle that a state's legitimacy is measured by its accountability, not its symbolic status. Stability and necessity.
The Necessity of a Realistic Ethical Approach:
The fundamental concept in the relationship between authority and society is freedom from human sanctification, while adhering to the balance of truth and justice. From an ethical perspective, the relationship between the citizen and the state is not one of blind dependence, but rather a contract based on mutual responsibility. The legitimacy of government is measured by its commitment to the goals of justice, not its symbolic status or revolutionary slogans. An individual's patriotism is measured by their commitment to the values of truth and justice as a method for fulfilling their duties and exercising their rights toward their society and state.
In this context, Quranic values such as equity, consultation, and honesty become normative tools for holding authority accountable. Allah the Almighty says: “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives” (An-Nisa’: 135). This confirms that the standard of justice in the Qur’an is not what the state or people deem right, but rather what conforms to the divine right. The Qur’an warns against concealing political and moral testimony, even from the closest of people, let alone from employees authorized to serve. This is confirmed in other places: “And do not conceal testimony. And whoever conceals it, his heart is sinful” (Al-Baqarah: 283). Remaining silent about deviations is not neutrality, but rather hidden participation in an injustice upon which reform cannot be built. As for Shura (consultation), it is not merely a formal constitutional principle. Rather, it is a Quranic spirit based on testimony, accountability, and the rejection of tyranny of opinion: “And their affairs are decided by consultation among themselves.” (Ash-Shura: 38)
From a realistic political perspective, the absence of these ethics from the public sphere renders the state a closed structure based on fear, not conviction. Citizenship becomes a mere collective silence, patriotism a tool for expelling dissent, and religion itself is used to numb the public conscience. Therefore, reviving the Quranic moral dimension in this way in politics does not mean Islamizing the state, but rather restoring the free individual, as honored by God, as the center of responsibility, and restoring the state as a means of justice, not an end in itself.
No to Bush's political narrative:
The political narrative is based on the principle of "whoever is not with me is against me." Between enemies of the state, who are described as lurkers with vile agendas threatening the nation, and loyalists who identify with the state to the point of appeasement, this constitutes a dangerous reduction of collective consciousness and reduces the space for participation to mere approval or hostility.
This binary mode of thinking excludes all other areas of opinion, which are colored across the spectrum, and which in reality represent the most important space for reform, correction, civilizational development, and the establishment of construction, construction, and beauty in society. No room is left for the critical citizen, the independent intellectual, or the one with a different opinion, because they do not belong to either pole. Critical awareness becomes an accusation, neutrality becomes a cowardly position, and anyone who seeks to construct a third narrative based on truth and the public interest is criminalized.
From a philosophical perspective, this situation represents what Habermas calls a "crisis of public communication," where the public sphere is stifled and discourse monopolized by those with power, not those with arguments. From a Quranic perspective, it contradicts the Almighty's statement: "And let not the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness." (Al-Ma'idah: 8) because the binary narrative is based on hatred, not justice.
Building a modern state requires something broader than two opposing camps; it requires a third space where those who disagree can come together for justice, not division. Note that this division certainly serves the camp of the nation's enemies, who are truly lurking and have infiltrated society itself through their hammers of demolition, not criticism. They wield criticism, not through the opinions expressed by those who wield constructive criticism, which support reform and help the government rebuild on sound foundations and adhere to a progressive path of improvement that ensures sustainability. This is achieved by pushing the government into self-isolation and withdrawing into its own opinions, immune to criticism from its supporters, on the one hand. On the other hand, it gives the nation's enemies the pretext to exploit this division to their advantage by misleadingly marketing every critical opinion as an opposition calling for the overthrow of the regime and the destruction of the state, within the framework of the standards of the state's own supporters, unfortunately.
Finally, it is striking that many of these defenders of the new state within a framework of sanctity are themselves victims of the old state, which raises a bitter question: Are we reproducing tyranny under the guise of revolution? This paradox means that the revolution has not yet succeeded in establishing a collective critical mind, and that political and cultural elites are now required to construct a new discourse that consolidates the principle that criticizing the state is not treason, but rather the essence of citizenship.
The essence of the modern state is not based on obedience, but on a balance between authority and accountability. Any state that is elevated above criticism transforms into an updated version of tyranny. In the new Syria, we need to revolutionize consciousness, not just institutions, and build a state that is not afraid of criticism, but rather thrives on it sustainably.
The most dangerous thing revolutions face is not only their enemies, but also their supporters, who turn into guardians of blind silence, rather than builders of a conscious collective conscience.
Ayman Qasim Al-Rifai - Zaman Al-Wasl
Zaman Al Wasl
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.