Syria’s Participation in the Arab Spring

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Parties Involved
The History of the Conflict
Context, Audience, and Purpose
References

Introduction

Syria being an integrated part of the Arab world could not resist the strong effect of rebellious mood in the neighboring countries and join the Arab Spring, a series of protest in the Middle East regions demanding the Presidents’ resignations and democratization of the societies. This wave of upheavals demonstrated the ugliness of the societal systems and unwillingness for the transition from autocracy to democracy.

In most countries, Islamist parties that came to power or significantly strengthened their positions and influence did not support building up civil society (Hubbard and Gladstone par. 3, 5). This issue is especially vital in the case Syria where the development of Arab Spring upheavals have led to the outburst of the Civil War, as President Bashar al-Assad did not want to resign and the protestants led by the opposition would not give up on their ideas.

Parties Involved

From the very beginning of the Arab Spring in Syria in March 2011, there were only two parties to the conflict – opposition which led the protesters and the President with his supporters. Such division, however, may not be comprehensive, as there is one more side of the conflict, local community members. Their position is clear.

They neither wanted to participate in the protests nor back up reigning political regime. Instead, these people strived for safety for their children and their homes and peace in their homeland. This group is approximately 40 percent of the population of Syria, who were forced to leave their homes in the search for safety and better life abroad (Glass 16). What is at stake for them is their well-being and life.

The initial position of the opposition was that the people lacked freedoms and that there is a need to eradicate the autocracy from social and political life and implement a new regime that would rest upon democratic values and respect for human dignity. All the requirements of the protesters came down to fair employment, sufficient provision, and adequate health care system (Hubbard and Gladstone par. 12).

The only matter with the transition to the democratic society is that, from the opposition’s perspective, it was impossible until Bashar al-Assad remained the President. What is at stake for the protesters is the belief that if they win, their country might witness the positive shifts in the social and political systems, i.e. the transition from autocracy to democracy and from terror to respect of human dignity.

The standpoint of the President remained the same during the course of the revolution evolving into an armed conflict. He would not want to give up on his powers and would do everything that is possible to maintain the functioning of his regime based on old autocratic ideals. So, «as the protests spread, the regime responded, predictably, with gunfire, arrests and torture» (Glass 18) thus demonstrating the desire to rule. What is at stake for him is his power and the opportunity to preserve the autocratic regime that was distinctive for all the Arab states.

One more party to the conflict is the world community acting through the United Nations Organization that gets involved later. The primary position is that Assad should step down so that it will lead to the renewal of peace in the country. What is at stake for this part is the global peace and the safe tomorrow. What is more, it is the safety and welfare of the citizen of their countries as because of the growing numbers of refugees, the issue of welfare is up in the air.

The History of the Conflict

The unrest began on 23 March 2011, with a series of peaceful protests in the southern parts of the country that were strangled by the security forces. Later, in May, Government deployed army and sent troops to suppress the demonstrations. The turning point that turned the peaceful revolution into a cruel bloodshed was March 2012 when the powers of protesters stated that they should use the weapon to protect civil population from the terror and oppression of the government (Kaphle 1).

Subsequent months turned into a caravan of military operations, attacks, and bombings all over the Syrian territory with the only aim – getting more influence and power without regard to a number of dead and wounded. The beginning of 2014 was a remarkable period for the development of the conflict, as the government and the National Coalition have come to peace signing an agreement. However, this accomplishment does not overscore the dreadful outcomes of the civil war that has claimed more than 200,000 lives, even more people were wounded, and hundreds of thousands have left their homes in a search for safety (Glass 11).

It should be said what changes occurred in the mindset and the primary points of the protesters led by the opposition. What at first started as peaceful revolt, turned into a terrible war. At the beginning of the Arab Spring:

Syrian aspirations resonated with lovers of liberty everywhere: an end to governmental corruption and arbitrary arrest; an independent judiciary; a free press; equality before the law; abolition of torture; genuine elections leading to legitimate authority; and democratic institutions responsible to the governed. The state responded with arrests and violence. Dissidence evolved into war. (Glass 113)

That means that the initial desire to build the democratic society in Syria peacefully evolved into the want to overthrow the regime by any means, even barbarous cruelty. What worsened the situation is the waking up the so-called Islamic State that has occupied Southern regions of Syria, but it is a whole new story. That said, all the military operations that have place in today’s Syria including both internal and external participants are actions aimed at confronting the jihadist Islamic State, and not the initial rioters.

Because of it, there is a stalemate in the situation in Syria. First, President Bashar al-Assad remains in power. Second, parties involved in the initial conflict are wearied out and cannot come to an agreement concerning the future of the state. Third, the society has seen no democratic changes. It can be proved by the very simple fact – the use of social media and the Internet for free exchanging of thoughts. At the very beginning of the Arab Spring, social networks were seen as a powerful tool for building up a movement of protesters and setting up a rebellious mood in the society (Harvey 1386).

The government partially blocked social media so that the rioters would not have an opportunity to find out the places of the mass demonstrations planned in different cities across the country and get in touch with each other (Harvey 1222). In this way, it has become the initial form of oppression that later was followed by armed strangling.

So, with the evolution of the conflict evolved the main points of the parties involved in it, especially the protestants, from the peaceful transition towards democracy to the desire to overthrow Assad’s regime by any means. What remains unchanged is the President’s clinging to power and the traditional political system.

Context, Audience, and Purpose

The purpose of the research is to define the parties to the conflict, their positions, and how they changed in the course of the upheavals, so that the audience, everybody reading it, could have a clear vision of the situation. The conflict has three parties – opposition, the President, common people, and international community with everyone involved having particular taking particular position in the conflict. Opposition, for example, requires the President’s resignation and the transition of the society towards the one based on democratic values.

The President wants to remain the one who rules the country. Local communities are neutral and desire peace and safety that is why they choose to flee abroad in the hope of better future for their families, so what is at stake for them is their life and welfare. What is at stake for the opposition is the desire to reform the social and political system. That said, if protesters lose, Syria will not become a democratic society. What is at stake for Assad is that if he loses, it might cost him not only power but also life. World community strives for global peace, and it is its stake.

References

Glass, Charles. Syria Burning: ISIS and the Death of the Arab Spring. New York, New York: OR Books. 2015. Print.

Harvey, Kerric Ed. Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics. 3 vols. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. 2014. Print.

Hubbard, Ben and Rick Gladstone. “Arab Spring Countries Find Peace Is Harder Than Revolution.” The New York Times 2013. Print.

Kaphle, Anup. “Timeline: Unrest in Syria.” The Washington Post 2014. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!