The Assad Regime

The structure of the Assad regime in Syria is different than what most people would consider to be typical in an authoritarian state. While there is brutal oppression of political enemies, and censorship of arts and news, the regime did allow certain things to slide. The concept of tanfis, or letting out air, helps the regime by letting people be frustrated and express that through political cartoons or a joke, and then gives the impression that there is freedom. However, the jokes which are allowed are always eerily accurate. For example, if it something about government censorship, the cartoon will include the repercussions of writing something against the state. In this way, the state essentially uses political cartoons as threats. Through humor, the cartoon depicts what will happen if a citizen turns against the state. In addition, when the acts of opposition against the state is something as basic as a cartoon or a joke, rather than an armed rebellion, that is beneficial to the regime. And for most of the reign of the Assad family, that was the case.

            Lisa Wedeen’s book, The Ambiguities of Domination, help to characterize the peculiar but effective strategies of the Assad family. The shameless promotion of Hafez as the most competent at everything he tried was unbelievable, but this by no means turned him into a laughing stock. The over the top nature of the cult of personality created still was powerful, as pictures of the family were all over, and they were portrayed powerfully. When a message is repeated over and over, and becomes part of the culture, it becomes easier to believe and internalize. The consistency of the propaganda wears people down and becomes incredibly effective. On top of that, when people are unsure when the line will be drawn and how erratic retribution will be, the effectiveness increases. Their strategies essentially isolate individuals and make organized opposition against the regime impossible. While the regime is now under attack from a few groups, the length which they could repel this demonstrates its merits.

            Clearly, forms of opposition succeeded against the regime, and that was possible as the subtler forms of protest began to hold powerful messages. When a cartoon used to intimidate, it began to inspire. While the Assad family operated a successful propaganda and fear campaign, as soon as it broke, it was impossible to put back together. Once the initial fear factor was lost, and people felt freer to make jokes and criticize the regime, that became less terrifying.

Hours too Early

In a strange twist of events, the panel regarding US policy on the Middle East happened hours before the United States launched fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base. Contrary to some of the panelists view, who believed the US would leave Syria alone to focus on destroying ISIS. The differing perspectives between the three panelists were offering not only different viewpoints, but were experts in various fields.

After attending a similar lecture last year regarding US policy towards Russia and the Ukraine, having a professor from the Army War College adds quality and depth in places where civilians sometimes cannot. However, something that I do not think was adequately addressed was Putin’s interest in supporting the Syrian regime. Considering the proximity to the Russian border, it makes sense that Putin would prefer to keep active US troops out of the picture. Putin seems to want to establish a sphere of influence where he can reestablish the former military might of the former Soviet Union.

Another interesting angle brought up by the panel was the dynamic between the regional powers in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both states try to exercise power over surrounding countries with either blatant or covert action. A surprising attitude which the panelists reflected was downplaying the threat ISIS poses, as well as how quickly they expect it to be destroyed. I think they could have been clearer here, as the territory ISIS has might be taken back, but the ideology itself is much more difficult to combat. Similarly, to the missile attack, days after the panel, ISIS claimed responsibility for a terror attack on a church in Egypt. It seems like predicting what might happen in the Middle East is near futile.

Looking forward, US policy in the Middle East seemingly must work with Moscow and try to avoid civilian causalities. One of the more somber points brought forward in the panel was that the Middle East and its assortment of problems should only be contained, not solved. While this is certainly a realist’s opinion on the matter, it does offer a bleak future for the region.

The Future of Monarchies

With the events of the Arab Spring shaking the status quo of many states in the Middle East and North Africa, (MENA) the monarchies in the region realized that adaptation was the only option to survive. The different degrees of adaptation naturally vary. While the western world has edged away from unchecked monarchy, it remains in the MENA in states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait, among others. When examining why this is, it is important to look at the cultural and political history of the region, as well as current circumstances.

Due to the relatively young age of the states in the MENA, there is a wide spread on where states draw their legitimacy. Some claim their connections to Islam, others democracy, and some rely on pure strength. The monarchies in the region are typically ruled by a family which either bases their power on history, or current might. This created a difficult situation following the Arab Spring, when the people began to demand a voice in politics. A monarchy thrives when the people give their full faith to the monarch to govern in their own best interest, but when that trust is violated or doubted, the dominance which the monarch hold weakens substantially. Since the monarch does not want to cede all their power, they slightly liberalize and combat their opposition by giving up small pieces of control.

            What often brings about many of the problems faced by monarchies is the influx of rent money and the corruption which typically follows. Corruption has become one of the major issues in the inflated bureaucracies of MENA states, with bribery and dishonesty often being more effective than not. Paradoxically, this money from rents is what helps preserve the power of the monarch, as they can use this money to distribute to households, work on infrastructure projects, or other public works. By appeasing some immediate needs, the monarchies survive. However, this is only applicable in states that have the resources to profit from, monarchies in states like Jordan have had to find other ways to survive.

            With monarchical states that are resource poor, they must appeal to other monarchies in the MENA, and operate as a club to keep each other in power. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is a group of monarchies in the MENA that helps preserve their own interests and provides support if any of their regimes are threatened.

            One of the biggest issues facing monarchies moving forward is the potential long-term success of states such as Tunisia. If an example can be made of a state which had a popular revolution and came out on the other side not under a military dictatorship, potential revolutionaries in monarchies might begin to seriously consider a shot. While challenges to the power of monarchies is certainly not a new thing, the different types of media, from cable news networks to Twitter have changed the way people can access news and information. Additionally, traditionally oppressed peoples in monarchical states have demanded equality under the law and representation. With some of these groups having large populations, or living in strategically important regions, their submission to the monarchy is crucial to its survival.

            While King Henry said, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,” the uneasiness truly rests upon those that are being ruled. While a leader should not be in fear of those they are ruling, the lack of a truly mutually beneficial relationship between a ruler and the citizens is not a good recipe for a state.