There is a widespread complaint that the Arabs are not conducive to democracy. Especially after the fall of the dictators of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and later Yemen, Algeria and Sudan in the wake of the Arab Spring, the situation has not improved but deteriorated.
But the reality is that, hundreds of years ago today, when democracy was not established in many countries in Europe, the Syrian Arabs took the initiative to establish a much more modern democratic state than at the time. At that time, the elected representatives of Syria drafted a constitution that, hundreds of years later, is enviable for many countries around the world.
In that constitution, Bilad al-Sham, or Greater Syria, was declared a representative monarchy, where the king's power was very limited and most of the power was vested in an elected parliament. The constitution of Syria, written three years before the establishment of the Turkish Republic by Kemal Ataturk, was a secular constitution. There was no state religion in this constitution. Rather there was equality for citizens of all religions.
The only thing that was said about religion was that Islam should be the religion of the king. However, most of the members of parliament who passed the constitution were conservative leaders of the Ottoman period. And the president of the parliament at the time, whose initiative saw the light of this constitution, was Rashid Rida, one of the most influential Islamic scholars in the Arab world at the time.
Even in the United States itself, when women did not have the right to vote, members of the Syrian Arab Congress examined the possibility of giving Syrian women the right to vote when drafting the constitution. In the end, fearing the reaction of the society, even though women were not given the right to vote at that moment, they chose the word gender neutral for that section of the constitution in such a way that there would be no problem in giving women the right to vote at any moment.
If the Syrian constitution had been effective, we would have seen a completely different Arab world today, with most of the world's democracies. But that did not happen because the colonial interests of Britain and France. The story of how Britain and France dusted off the Syrians' path to democracy a hundred years ago is presented to readers in the book "How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs" by Middle Eastern historian Elizabeth F. Thompson.
Elizabeth F., professor of history at the University of Virginia in the United States. Thompson's main field of study is the history of the Middle East during the First World War. He has written books on the subject before. But no other book on the subject has been written in English before in the language of the subject which he has shed light on in this book.
Thompson's How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs focuses on the events that took place in the politics of Greater Syria from 1918-20. It is clear from the book's subtitles: The Arab Congress of 1920, the Destruction of the Syrian State, and the Rise of Anti-Liberal Islamism. Thompson has tried to show that Britain and France are responsible for the monopoly power of dictatorship and anti-liberal Islamism in the current Arab world, which usurped Syria's independence in 1920 and ushered in a dark era in Syria by dissolving the Syrian Congress.
The story of How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs revolves around Prince Faisal, the third son of Sharif Hussein bin Ali of Mecca. Faisal was the commander of the Northern Arab Army formed at the end of World War I, led by British spy T.E. Lawrence with, he played a key role in defeating the Ottoman forces in Jordan.
Growing up in Istanbul, Faisal was loyal to the Ottoman Sultan in his early life, but later the young Turks' fierce Turkish nationalism, discrimination against Arabs, and the defeat of the Ottomans at the beginning of World War II forced him to find a new path. In Damascus, when he was introduced to members of the secret Arab organization Fatat, aimed at Arab autonomy, he was influenced by them and later, through his father, contacted the British who were fighting against the Ottomans.
The British promised Sharif Hussein and Faisal that if they helped the British defeat the Ottomans, the whole Arab world would be liberated after the war. But in reality the British plan was different. They had earlier agreed to divide Iraq and Syria under the Sykes-Pico agreement with France. They also promised the Jews to hand over control of Palestine.
Before the end of World War II, Faisal sensed the plight of the British. Shortly after the conquest of the present-day Syrian city of Deira in August 1918, Faisal learned that the British were planning to enter Damascus and take control of Syria. Without giving them that opportunity, Faisal himself with his forces defeated the Ottomans on 30 September, entered Damascus and established Arab control there. He allied himself with the Shiites to keep Syria free from both British and Ottoman rule.
Basically, the story of the book started through this incident. With references to various documents, autobiographies and diaries recovered from the archives of British, French and Arab countries, Thompson details in his book how Faisal continued his military and diplomatic efforts for the sovereignty and integrity of Greater Syria.
Faisal was trying to negotiate with the British to establish an independent, sovereign and unified Syrian Arab monarchy with the current Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel, and parts of Turkey and Iraq, as promised. But because of the fragile economy of the British, they needed to retain control of Iraq's oil fields. And since they are occupying Iraq, they have to hand over Syria to the French according to the Sykes-Pico agreement. The French themselves did not want any country in the Middle East to become independent and inspire their colonies in different parts of Africa to be independent.
Failing to deliver on the British promise, Faisal turned his attention to America. He was particularly fascinated by President Woodrow Wilson's 14-point policy of autonomy, which expressed support for the independence of all nations, large and small. Faisal rushed to the Paris Peace Conference to establish that the Syrians are a nation worthy of independence, that they do not need to be colonized or under so-called "mandate" rule.
He made a strong statement in front of world leaders. He met more than once with the leaders of America, Britain and France. Sometimes through argument, sometimes through compromise, he tries to achieve the independence of Syria. But despite Wilson's support, his efforts to deceive Britain and conspire with France repeatedly failed. He eventually returned to the country, and initiated democracy in Syria by establishing the Syrian Arab Congress with representatives from all over Syria to prove that the Syrians really deserved it.
Thompson presents Faisal's character in his book with extreme caution. At first, Faisal seems to be the hero to the reader. But after the formation of the parliament, when Faisal started quarreling with its members, his real identity came to light. Understandably, Faisal was not a freedom-loving revolutionary leader at all. He was a cowardly, weak and power-hungry prince who was much more dependent on the West.
The conflict between Faisal and his own established Congress soon escalated. While many members of parliament were staunch opponents of the French colonial rule called the Mandate, there was also the possibility of a war against French troops, where Faisal was finally secretly trying to negotiate with France. But in the end he could not succeed.
By tragically defeating Syrian forces in the Battle of Mycenae, France not only killed Syrian democracy, but also expelled Faisal from Syria. And in the years that followed, they also tried to hide and distort the history of this journey to Syria in a democratic way in order to legitimize their own attacks.
Another important character in Thompson's book is Islamic scholar Rashid Rida. If there is one true hero in his book, it is not Faisal, but Rida. Rashid Rida, now a resident of Tripoli in Lebanon, was in Egypt at the time. But seeing the political unrest in Syria, he rushed there to advise Faisal. At one point, he was elected president of Syria's newly formed Congress.
The members of this Syrian Congress were followers of different views and ideologies from different walks of life. Most of them were conservative, but in contrast many were highly liberal, many were hardline Arab nationalists. Thompson credits Rashid Rida for being able to draft a successful constitution in a short period of time by agreeing to follow these completely opposite parties and opinions.
On the contrary, a hundred years later, Thompson has blamed colonial power for the Liberals' lack of consensus with Islamists in various Arab countries. Because if Syrian democracy had been allowed to run smoothly, they themselves might have been able to further consolidate their democracy through debate. But after the West snatched their democracy and snatched their sovereignty, they began to blame each other for their own failures. That distrust and accusation of one party towards the other is still going on today.
Elizabeth F. Thompson's book is rich in references, detailed information and direct quotes. This huge book of about 600 pages written on the history of a period of only one and a half years may seem a little long to the average reader. But the book will undoubtedly be considered an invaluable document for history students or those interested in learning the history of the Middle East in detail.
Post a Comment