Sudden, unexpected events at international levels can change your plans. This is what happened to me when I was preparing to write this column. My initial goal for this column was to focus on urban planning and participatory democracy practices and how the latter can guide a process of urban generations in big cities like Kathmandu. Instead, I am drawn to the events unfolding in Syria.
Why should a country far from Nepal with no apparent similarities to South Asia appeal to me so much? Simply because what is occurring in Damascus, the capital of Syria, is simply groundbreaking and unprecedented. Perhaps it is a place where stronger democratic governance could take place.
I am smitten by how fast the Assad regime collapsed and how the Syrian Army could not put up a fight to block and resist the advance of the rebels that now basically are controlling the whole country.
“After 14 years of conflict, the Syrian people finally have reason for hope. The Assad regime’s refusal since 2011 to engage in a credible political process and its reliance on the brutal support of Russia and Iran led inevitably to its own collapse,” Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, said. Indeed once the Russian and the Iranian had succeeded in propping up Bashar Al-Assad, by now, a political refugee in Russia and a former President of Syria, a real political process of reconciliation should have emerged.
Instead, Assad and the regime came up with fake attempts of bringing peace and unity to the country. Their process was never genuinely designed to truly reconcile the people of Syria and bring real democracy to the country. It was not only flawed but also lacked legitimacy and credibility.
As many pundits and commentators have already explained, we will have to see how the changes unfolding throughout Syria will affect the people living there, the millions of citizens living overseas and the wider Middle East. I am not interested in this column to talk about geopolitics and the ramifications of what will happen now in Damascus. I would like to focus on democracy.
Now the rebels who, as per now, are controlling the majority of the country and the Syrian Opposition abroad will have a chance to build a new democratic order. This is at least the hope that the vast majority of the international community has while the fear is that disorder, chaos and a relentless thirst for revenge will instead prevail. Sudden changes in political orders are always complex and dangerous.
We can also see what is occurring in Dhaka after the collapse of the Hasina regime. The situation there is not exactly anarchic, this assessment would not be a fair and objective description of facts in Bangladesh. Still, it is very much precarious and unstable no matter the efforts being put in by the Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel laureate and the de facto Prime Minister.
There is no doubt that the days ahead in Syria will be fraught, tense and extremely difficult. Syria will have to find its own pathway towards an inclusive form of governance that would genuinely engage and involve its own people. In this unique and precarious context, it is way too early to predict what will happen in terms of political process.
Hopefully the rebels who dislodged the Assad regime, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or HTS will be able to convene a conference with all the political forces that, for decades, have been opposing the authoritarian power of the Assad family. There might be a temptation that, setting a time frame for elections, might be seen by the international community, especially the West, as the right step forward.
I tend to disagree here. It is not that I do not hold elections as highly important. Elections have been the cornerstone of liberal democracy, the hallmarks of many societies around the world. But in contexts that have never seen in place any forms of liberal, election-based democracy, going for elections could be an unwise move.
In addition, we must recognize that traditional, classic liberal democracy that basically delegates the power of the people to an elite, to a class of full time politicians, is under heavy criticism and rightly so. This is the reason why, around the world, many new innovative practices of bottom-up democratic experimentations are emerging.
I am talking about examples of grassroots deliberations in which the people have not only the power of casting a vote during the election cycles. Their power instead is not taken away, at least not completely, by elected politicians that decide on their behalf. Instead the citizens have opportunities to discuss and decide the way forward both at local and national levels through reasoned deliberations.
It is wrong to assume that traditional western models of participation offer the best answers to the local needs of the people.
Imagine a myriad of citizens’ assemblies that are working with local governments and national authorities and, along with elected officials, to determine their own priorities. It might seem to the reader as something surreal and utopic but it is happening and slowly is taking root.
Yet, the truth is that this way of “doing democracy” has not yet become mainstream but this process of reformation is moving in the right direction. Syria is a complex nation and an ancient civilization with a rich and proud history and culture. Its people will have, after so many years of repression and oppression, the chance to decide the future political course.
But let’s not forget that democratic norms cannot be imposed. They must be established and nurtured. This is a long process that cannot be rushed.
The goal should lead to a way to establish the conditions for a genuine form of governance where people’s rights are respected and where citizens’ voices and concerns are truly heard.
Perhaps a consideration should be given to empower people to have a direct say on the political future of a nation that, let’s not forget, counts on numerous minority groups which, by now, are terrified about the future. Creating inclusive governance is not an easy quest.
Nepal, a country that, on many parameters, can be correctly considered as a gold standard of democratic practices, is still finding its own way in creating a truly transparent, accountable bottom up political system. We learned that traditional forms of federalism, while ideal, at least on paper for the country’s unique circumstances, do not offer magic solutions.
Kathmandu and Damascus are totally different and equally different are the political situations of Nepal and Syria these days. The former showed to the international community that, after a bloody civil war, a political, democratic solution is possible and the peace divided can truly pay off.
Here federalism was embraced as a panacea.
As we know, this was an illusion as Nepal is still hard pressed on finding the best ways to make it work for its own people. The work here is not done yet as governance still must be perfected and enhanced. Syria needs to be completely reconstructed and not only materialistically speaking. Its form of governance must be re-invented from scratch.
Yet despite being so far and so different, Syria and Nepal must prove to the international community that localized solutions, after a civil conflict, are possible but a boldness of thinking new solutions is required.
Effective, inclusive and participatory governance should not follow an imposed blueprint. Localized forms of democracy that offer real power to the people should be sought and proposed around the world. In Damascus these can give a way to a process of reconciliation while in Kathmandu, they could break the political oligopoly dominated by political parties. It is wrong to assume that traditional western models of participation offer the best answers to the local needs of the people.
Comment