by Salim Mujais
On a social level, Syria is currently divided along religious and ethnic lines. Religious and ethnic persecutions by sectarian rules whether indigenous to Syria or foreign, have contributed to this state. Persecution by other Christian sects led the Maronites to leave northern Syria and take refuge in the Lebanese mountains. This tendency to seek a geographical sanctuary was fostered by continuation of oppression by later rulers. A similar situation can be detailed for the Druze, the Assyrians, and the Alawites. Finally, the political associations of religious history continue to separate the Sunni and Shi’i Muslims in Syria.
Religious conflict and economic strife were major contributors to the disarray in Syria and national weakness. It is not surprising therefore to note that the majority of the Reform Principles of the SSNP are concerned with robust secularization of the state and society and the provision of the conditions for economic prosperity. A basic element that links the four reform principles in question (vide infra) is the question of justice and the fundamental belief in the preservation and advancement of human rights and the equality of rights for all citizens. In a society plagued by longstanding religious conflict, only radical secularization of the state and society can guarantee the equality of rights for all citizens.
The First Reform Principle reiterates the standard proposition of the separation of religion and state. In the West, the usual formulation is the separation of the Church and State, since Western nations are predominantly Christian and the term “Church” encompasses all religious institutions of whatever denominations. In Syria, however, the SSNP had to contend with multiple religions and myriad denominations within each religion. Further, the intent was not simply to separate the institutions of religion from the institutions of the state, but more importantly religion altogether from the state.
“The greatest obstacle to our national unity and our national progress has been the association between our religious and political institutions and the pretension of ecclesiastical bodies to political power and their actual possession of such power in varying degrees. Theocracy or the religious state is incompatible with the concept of nationhood because it stands for the domination of the whole community of believers by an ecclesiastical authority. Religion recognizes no national interests because it is concerned with a community of believers dominated by a central religious authority. The concept of a religious-political bond in lieu of the political is contrary to nationalism in general and to Syrian Social Nationalism in particular. The adherence of Syrian Christians to such a concept would set them apart from other religious groups within the nation and would expose their interests to the danger of being submerged in the interests of other groups with whom they happen to share a religious bond. Similarly, the adherence of Syrian Moslems to the concept of a religious bond would bring their interests also to possible conflict with those of their non-Muslim compatriots and would submerge those interests in those of the greater religious community. The inevitable outcome of the concept of a religious bond is the disintegration of the nation and the decline of national life. We cannot achieve national unity by making the state a religious one because in such a state rights and interests would be denominational in nature pertaining exclusively to the dominant religious group. Where such rights and interests are those of a religious group, common national rights and interests will not obtain. Without the community of interests and rights there can be no unity of duties and no unified national will. Based on this legal philosophy, the SSNP has succeeded in laying down the foundations of national unity and in actually realizing it within its ranks.”
This Principle is based on several historical and theoretical imperatives. The first imperative is to remediate actual social problems in Syria as regards the divisiveness of religious sects when they take political and legal forms. The necessity of such a principle for national revival cannot be overstated. The tragedies perpetrated in Syria by the religiously motivated or contrived policies continue to sap the revival energies of the Syrian nation and retard its progress towards becoming a viable modern polity. The internecine massacres in Lebanon and the power struggles in Iraq and the Syrian Republic have clear religious undercurrents. The recent resurgence of religious based and motivated militant political and armed organizations illustrates the fragility of the social order in Syria and the predisposition to greater calamities if application of this principle and its ramifications detailed below is further delayed.
Another imperative for the promulgation of this principle is to vindicate national sovereignty that has to reside in the entirety of the Syrian nation and not be limited to any denominational group however majoritarian. Unity of society is a necessary condition for safeguarding national sovereignty. Further, the unity of society is jeopardized by legal inequality and the latter usually obtains when a religious state emerges in multidenominational societies.
To leave no doubt about the extent of secularization intended, the Second Reform Principle, Debarring the clergy from interference in political and judicial matters, elaborates on the prohibition of involvement of the clergy of any religion in judicial and political matters of national character. “The rationale for setting forth this principle in a separate article is that religious bodies attempt to acquire or retain civil authority even where the separation of church and state has been conceded. This Principle puts an end to the indirect interference of ecclesiastical bodies in civil and political matters. This Principle defines precisely the meaning of the separation of the church from the state for reform must not be confined to the political sphere but must extend to the legal-judicial sphere as well. In a country where judicial function is not homogeneous owing to the diversity of religious sects, political rights and sound political institutions will not be possible nor will general national unity for the latter is conditional on the unity of laws. The state must have a uniform judiciary and a unified system of laws. Citizens must all be equal before the one law of the state. There can be no unity of character where the basis of life is in conflict with the unity of the nation.”
Explicit in this formulation is that religion cannot be a source of jurisprudence for the national state for that would preclude equality of rights in a multidenominational society, and would be an impediment to progress and evolution of laws because of the inherent rigidity of religious doctrine. Saadeh was careful in clarifying that these prohibitions relate to judicial matters of national import. The SSNP, consequently, does not concern itself with denominational judiciary matters that individuals may choose to abide by in matters of personal affairs such as marriage, divorce, membership in the faith, or other, as long as all Syrians have a common secular option for the same, and as long as the religious forms do not supersede or impinge on national legislation. An individual Syrian may choose to have his or her marital status blessed by the judicial apparatus of their faith as long as it does not contravene or subvert the governance of that status by the civil laws of the state.
The Third Reform Principle concerns itself with the secularization of society. It states “Removal of the barriers between the various sects and confessions”. While respecting freedom of religion for individuals, the SSNP recognizes that traditions and customs emanating from historical religious processes have created barriers between citizens of different faith that undermine the emergence of a strong sense of national identity and free social intercourse. “There exists in Syria age-old barriers between the various sects and denominations that are not of the essence of religion. There are conflicting traditions derived from the structure of religious and denominational institutions that have exerted an enormous influence on the social and economic unity of the people, weakened it and delayed our national revival. As long as these barriers remain, our call for freedom and independence will remain futile. Every nation that seeks a free and independent life in which it can realize its ideals must possess real spiritual unity. Such spiritual unity is not possible in a country in which each group lives in isolation from other groups and has partic
ular social and legal systems, which set it apart from other groups. This would result in diversity in character and disharmony in aims and aspirations. The socio-legal barriers separating the sects and denominations of the same nation constitute a major obstacle to the realization of the unity of the nation. The existence of the present social and legal barriers, which separate the various sects, entails the persistence of obnoxious religious bigotries.”
While secularization of laws and the judiciary may eliminate contractual barriers, the nefarious effects of religious segregation may remain. This is particularly true in the question of group identity fostered by religious education. The institution of civil marriage for example may remove the procedural barrier to interdenominational marriage that is commonly barred or made exceedingly difficult by religious norms. However, if sectarian religious education continues to drum the prohibition, the avoidance of interdenominational marriage may be perpetuated even in the presence of permissive secular laws. A consequence of this principle, for example, is that religious education in non-public schools (parochial schools) should be monitored and broadly defined by the state.
The SSNP approach toward achieving national unity is linked to the establishment of justice in the judicial, social, and economic spheres. While the preceding Reform Principles address the former two spheres, the Fourth Reform Principle concerns itself with the basis for economic justice: The abolition of feudalism, the organization of national economy on the basis of production and the protection of the rights of labour and the interests of the nation and the state. When the Principles of the SSNP were first formulated, feudalism was rampant in Syria. Successive land reforms and economic changes have practically abolished the practice. Nevertheless, the Principles hold that the SSNP opposes any forms of economic injustice. This is delineated in the assertion regarding the ‘protection of the rights of labour’ as economic injustice is against the interests of the nation. “The organization of the national economy on the basis of production is the only means for the attainment of a sound balance between the distribution of labor and the distribution of wealth. Every citizen should be productive in one way or another. Moreover, production and producers must be classified in such a way to assure coordination, participation, and cooperativity in the widest extent possible and to regulate the just share of laborers in production and to insure their right to work and to receive just compensation for their labor. This Principle will put an end to absolute individualism in production because every form of production in society is genuinely a collective or a cooperative one. Grave injustices can be perpetrated against labor and laborers were individual capitalists to be given absolute control. The public wealth of the nation must be controlled in the national interest and under the superintendence of the national state. Progress and strength of the national state cannot be achieved save with this policy.”
Critics of the SSNP, particularly Marxists, have often raised the issue of lack of extensive development and detail of the economic plan in the principles of the SSNP. The SSNP and Saadeh have delved frequently into the details of economic issues. Indeed, Saadeh has constantly addressed economic matters as they arose. While it is beyond the scope of the present essay to examine Saadeh’s approach to these different economic issues, it is to be remembered that the principles were meant to define aspects and positions that the SSNP considered essential and immutable.
Equality in poverty is not a condition that the SSNP accepts for Syrians. The economic approach should embody the view of the SSNP for the future of Syria as a vibrant and viable polity. Equitable prosperity can be achieved only if the productive forces of the Syrian nation and the resources of its homeland are activated. The survival and success of the Syrian nation depend among other things on its economic strength and power.
Productivity is understood in a wide sense. It is agricultural, industrial, and intellectual productivity. This broad concept of productivity is a guard against the disasters frequently brought upon rising nations by an exclusive and a stubborn attempt at industrialization at the expense of other components of the economic life of the nation. While the SSNP recognizes the need for the Syrian nation to develop industry, the latter is viewed as but one component of economic growth and advancement.
The safeguarding of the rights of labor is not a call to unionism. SSNP members have been active in the union movement in Syria since the inception of unions in the early thirties. The Party has, at various stages in its history, supported the rights of workers when presented in the context of union struggle. The limitations of unionism, however, have also been considered. Unionism is usually based on a narrow view of economic life. It is frequently limited to a specific sector of the economy, and the demands are perceived in isolation of more general issues. The framework of the national character of the economy is absent from most union demands. A call for wage increase, for example, is a frequent union demand. The consequences of this event on the competiveness of the product in international markets is rarely considered.
While many political groups catered to the nascent labor movement in Syria by uncritical endorsement of unionism, and admittedly achieved political gain because of this endorsement, the SSNP had the political courage to assess objectively the benefits and drawbacks of unionism in Syria. The resistance to unbridled unionism is not only on the basis of the principle of safeguarding the interest of the entire nation, but also on the realization that unionism in Syria has frequently been exploited by political manipulators, duped by capitalists or controlled and emasculated by socialist governments. Based on these theoretical and observational factors, the SSNP calls for organization of productivity and labor based on specialization, but only as a means of improved productivity and streamlined management. The economic system, however, does not call for militant unionism because it presupposes the application of the economic view within the framework of a nationalist state.
POLITICAL DISCIPLINE AND PARTY ORGANIZATION
The SSNP brought strategic and organizational discipline to the political field in Syria that hitherto had been dominated by erratic initiatives and random alliances governed by personal and sectarian interests. Political amateurism and usurpation of the will of the people had been the norm. Strategic discipline is enshrined in the Eighth Basic Principle: Syria’s interest supersedes every other interest. The text associated with this principle leaves no doubt as to its value and role: “This is the most important Principle in national activity for, in the first place, it provides the clue to the sincerity and integrity of national militants, and, in the second place, it directs their energies towards the interest of the Syrian nation and its welfare. It is the criterion by which all national movements and actions are judged. Through this criterion, the SSNP excels all other political factions in Syria, to say nothing of its obvious excellence in other respects. The SSNP aims at serving the concrete interests of the Syrians and at meeting their common needs and aims. There is no longer a need to seek in vain the definition of national endeavor in the domain of the abstract and the impracticable. This Principle centers all other principles round the interest of the nation so that Syrians are no longer misled by the teachings of those who would serve contrary interests. The life of the nation is a concrete reality and so are its interests. The success of the SSNP in bringing about this amazing national revival in our country is due, in great measure, to the fact that the Party seeks to serve the genuine interests of the Syrian nation and assert its will to life.”
This is the central operational Principle that guides the struggle and militancy of the SSNP for the establishment of the new order and renaissance in Syria. It does not imply only complete devotion to the cause of the nation and homeland, but puts the onus of extreme care on the shoulders of the SSNP constituency. This Principle links extreme devotion with the responsibility of seeking the best for the Syrian nation. The romanticism of good-intended deeds is unacceptable in national struggle because the cause is too great not to be approached with great seri
ousness and careful planning. While laudable, devotion to the cause of the nation is insufficient. A serious and responsible preparation is necessary to safeguard the interests of Syria. Thus to serve the genuine interests of the Syrian nation, the SSNP does not offer only a devoted constituency, but also a well thought out doctrine and plan. The doctrine and plan embodied in the preceding Principles find their operational vehicle in this principle. The SSNP does not contend that it is the only party devoted to the Syrian nation, but it asserts that the vehicle of this devotion is what really affects the destiny of Syria.
Political amateurism and usurpation of representation were and continue to be very common in Syria. Mindful of the dangers on the national cause from such political behavior, Saadeh sought to establish within the organizational structure of the SSNP a system of control and accountability. The strict hierarchical structure and emphasis on discipline have led critics of the SSNP to accuse it of militarism. The best treatise on the necessity of this organizational structure was offered by one of Saadeh’s closest early comrades and the leader of the organization for many years during Saadeh’s exile in South America (1938-1947), Nehmeh Thabit. Thabit wrote this explanation in 1945 in response to an attack by the Communist Party.42 The Communists had raised the easy libel of fascist 43 in attacking the SSNP. Because this allegation is used recurrently, it is useful to examine how a young colleague of Saadeh addressed the issue.
“Alleging that the SSNP is a fascist organization is not unique to the Communist Party. The now defunct French Mandate had used the allegation. The Mandate and its collaborators found that the allegation would reduce the burden of fighting the SSNP because it would make them appear as safeguarding the “national” scene from foreign interference and not persecuting patriots for their involvement in a liberation movement. Further, the allegation would make the SSNP doubly dangerous for it was not only espousing a foreign system, but a system that was ideologically opposed to the principles of justice, democracy and humanity that the Mandate authorities endeavor to inculcate in us with devotion and unwavering compassion… Thus, it may appear that the fault lies with the SSNP and its “nefarious intent” for having chosen a robust centralized hierarchical system and not with the “noble intent” of the Mandate power. Why would the SSNP commit such an “error,” adopt a centralized hierarchical system, and submit to the leadership of its Za’im with broad powers? It is obvious that the political means and methods of a particular party and its organizational structure are subject to the conditions surrounding the founding of the party and devolve of the need for these means and organizational aspects. Two fundamental factors dictate the choice of an organizational structure: First the aims and goals of the party; and Second, the obstacles encountered by the party. Based on this, we can now explore the special conditions of the emergence of the SSNP that have fostered the choice of a particular organizational and administrative character…