The Syrian Uprising: A Revolution, Not a Civil War

The introduction:

In the ongoing crisis in Syria, a concerted effort has been made by certain actors to mischaracterize the nature of the conflict, portraying it as a mere “civil war” rather than a genuine revolutionary movement. The distinction is critical, as labeling the uprising a civil war diminishes the legitimate aspirations for systemic change and the pursuit of democracy that motivated the initial protests, which emerged in the context of a broader wave of democratic movements across the Arab world. The Syrian Revolution, ignited by calls for political reform and human rights, represents a significant departure from the traditional notion of a civil war, as it seeks to dismantle a longstanding oppressive regime rather than merely reflecting the ambitions of competing factions within a fractured society.

To this end, this paper presents 25 distinct arguments that refute the characterization of the Syrian crisis as a civil war and instead affirm its status as a revolutionary movement.

**1. The Mass Character of the Revolution: **

- The Syrian Revolution started as widespread popular demonstrations encompassing all social, ethnic, religious, and sectarian groups. This mass character distinguishes it from civil wars, which are often armed conflicts between limited factions or competing sects. Emphasizing this mass nature reinforces the legitimacy of the revolution as a form of rights advocacy.

**2. Common Liberation Goals: **

- The Syrian Revolution is based on clear liberation goals such as freedom, dignity, and social justice, which were chanted by the revolutionaries from the very first day. It had no sectarian or factional demands. These goals are shared among all participants in the revolution, regardless of sect or ethnicity. In contrast, civil wars are often driven by power struggles or sectarian conflicts.

**3. The Authoritarian Regime as a Catalyst: **

- Revolutions arise as a reaction to authoritarian regimes that oppress their people, and this is exactly what happened in Syria. The Syrian regime brutally oppressed the people, acting with the criminality typical of an enemy of the people. Law vanished, rights were lost, and the Syrian citizen became a humiliated slave under a corrupt and despotic authority, leading to the outbreak of the revolution. Unlike civil wars, which may result from competition between conflicting groups, the Syrian Revolution is a struggle of the people against an authoritarian regime.

**4. The Peaceful Beginnings of the Revolution: **

- The Syrian Revolution began with peaceful demonstrations demanding reforms, filling public squares across Syria with calls for freedom and change. With bare chests, the protesters faced the regime’s bullets, tanks, and the torture and killing in prisons. Violence was a reaction to the regime's brutal repression, not the revolutionaries' initial choice. This distinction between the revolution's initial peacefulness and the violence resulting from the regime's repression refutes the labeling of the revolution as a civil war.

**5. Popular and International Legitimacy: **

- The Syrian Revolution enjoyed widespread popular legitimacy and international support from countries and organizations that uphold human rights. International conferences were held, and international committees visited the demonstrations, some of which were targeted by the regime. On the other hand, civil wars are typically confined to internal conflicts and do not receive the same level of international support as the Syrian Revolution.

**6. International Support for the Revolution: **

- From the first day of the revolution, it received international support from human rights organizations and pro-democracy countries. Arab League committees, United Nations committees, and statements condemning the regime's criminality and demanding its departure and change all affirm that what is happening in Syria is a popular revolution against a repressive regime, not merely an internal power struggle.

**7. Rejection of Violence as a Fundamental Principle of the Revolution: **

- The Syrian Revolution did not resort to violence initially, as evidenced by thousands of visual and written documents that document the brutal repression and killings carried out by the regime against peaceful demonstrators. Violence was only a response to the regime's brutal repression. Emphasizing this aspect highlights the difference between a revolution, which was initially peaceful, and a civil war, which usually involves mutual violence from the start.

**8. Non-Engagement in Sectarian Conflict: **

- The Syrian Revolution aimed to achieve freedom and dignity for all Syrians, regardless of sect, as evidenced by thousands of documents, statements, and chants that reassured various ethnic and sectarian groups. Even the names of the protest days affirmed this aspect. In contrast, civil wars are often characterized by sectarian conflict, while the Syrian Revolution sought to maintain its non-sectarian character.

**9. Comprehensive National Demands: **

- The demands raised by the Syrian Revolution encompassed all Syrians and called for comprehensive national changes, making it a nationwide revolution rather than a conflict between sects or factions.

**10. The Central Role of the Regime in Fueling the Conflict: **

- The Syrian regime played a central, malicious role in turning the peaceful revolution into an armed conflict through its brutal repression. It even attempted to lure some revolutionary groups into taking up arms. Focusing on the regime's responsibility for fueling the violence underscores that what is happening is a revolution against authoritarianism, not a civil war.

**11. The Revolutionary Symbolism: **

- The Syrian Revolution became a symbol of the struggle against tyranny in the Arab world, with widespread sympathy and respect from the Arab public for the revolutionaries and admiration for their stances. Most liberation movements and activists in the Arab world considered the Syrian Revolution as representing them. Civil wars, however, do not carry such liberating symbolism, highlighting the difference between a revolution and a civil war.

**12. Adherence to Ethical Principles: **

- The Syrian Revolution adhered to the principles of freedom and dignity despite brutal repression and did not turn against society. It overlooked the provocations of some factions trying to drag it into a sectarian war, and it considered Iranian intervention and Hezbollah as occupation, treating their supporters inside Syria as traitors and collaborators with the occupiers. Unlike civil wars, where ethical principles often give way to factional interests, the revolution maintained its ethical stance.

**13. Refusal to Recognize the Regime's Legitimacy: **

- The Syrian Revolution aims to overthrow the entire authoritarian regime, with all its symbols, mechanisms, and parties. Only its party and the parties loyal to Iranian occupation influence recognize it. Even some of its leaders defected to revoke recognition of it, then worked towards its downfall. In contrast, civil wars often see competing factions recognizing each other’s legitimacy within a struggle for power.

**14. Media Documentation of Violations: **

- No event has been documented like the violations of the regime against civilians, in written, audio, and visual forms. Tens of thousands of documents prove the regime's criminality and sadism, along with its supporters' crimes against defenseless civilians from all groups. The world saw these documents, which spurred sympathy for the revolutionaries, reinforcing the legitimacy of the revolution as a liberation movement and dispelling the notion of a civil war.

**15. The Liberating Nature of the Revolution: **

- The Syrian Revolution called for establishing a system based on equality and pluralism, where power is transferred peacefully. In contrast, civil wars are often driven by power struggles that lack the aim of establishing a pluralistic system or changing the system's structure.

**16. Women and Youth Participation: **

- The Syrian Revolution saw wide participation from women and youth, reflecting its liberating and inclusive nature. Civil wars, on the other hand, are often conflicts between armed factions and lack such broad societal participation.

**17. Rejection of Sectarianism and Division: **

- The Syrian Revolution rejected sectarianism and division, advocating for the unity of the Syrian people. This stance is evident from the chants, the revolution’s conferences, and the emphasis on the national project, "Syria for all Syrians." This position is in stark contrast to the nature of civil wars, which are characterized by deep divisions between sects or factions, with conflicts over interests and influence leading to power.

**18. The Authoritarian Regime as a Common Enemy: **

- The Syrian Revolution united various factions of the Syrian people against a common enemy, the authoritarian regime, despite differences among many intellectual schools, ideologies, and parties. Civil wars, by contrast, typically feature competing factions striving to achieve their interests. This did not occur in the Syrian Revolution. If there were some opportunists, they were not locals but rather outsiders supported by foreign powers with interests against the unity of the Syrian people. The PKK party is an example of these outsiders.

**19. The National Nature of the Revolution: **

- The Syrian Revolution had comprehensive national demands calling for radical changes at the state level, and in every city, it chanted in the name of the entire Syrian people. This distinguishes it from civil wars, which are often regional or sectarian conflicts.

**20. Emphasis on Civil and Political Rights: **

- The Syrian Revolution demanded civil and political rights for everyone, reinforcing its liberating nature and distancing it from the label of civil war, which often focuses on factional conflicts.

**21. International Support for Human Rights: **

- The international support for the Syrian Revolution from human rights organizations confirms that what is happening is a struggle for freedom and dignity, not an internal power struggle.

**22. Commitment to Peaceful Protest Despite Repression:**

   - Even after the revolution escalated into an armed conflict, peaceful demonstrations continued in several areas, demonstrating that the revolution was never driven by violence, but rather by the oppressive response of the regime.

Read More: 
The UAE: A Beacon of Tolerance and Diplomacy in the Fight Against Extremism

**23. Rejection of Armed Conflict as a Legitimate Means:**

   - The Syrian Revolution consistently rejected the legitimacy of armed conflict as a means to achieve its goals. It remained open to political solutions and engaged with numerous calls for negotiation. Violence was not a choice but a reaction to the regime’s brutal repression. In contrast, civil wars often commence with armed violence as a means to achieve factional objectives, concluding either through military victory or negotiated surrender.

**24. International Condemnation of the Regime’s Repression:**

   - The widespread international condemnation of the Syrian regime’s repression bolsters the legitimacy of the revolution and underscores that the global community views it as a liberation movement, not merely an internal conflict. Numerous statements and resolutions from prominent nations support this perspective.

**25. Focus on Transitional Justice:**

   - The Syrian Revolution calls for transitional justice and the accountability of the regime for its crimes, condemning any attempts to evade punishment, whether through political statements or international resolutions. Civil wars, on the other hand, often conclude with political settlements that lack true justice. Emphasizing the demand for justice highlights the revolution’s liberating nature.

Conclusion:

Focusing on these points helps to preserve the term “revolution” and reject its mischaracterization as a civil war. These arguments are rooted in a deep analysis of the political and ideological contexts of the Syrian Revolution, highlighting the essential differences between it and civil wars, thus enabling a robust intellectual rebuttal to false claims.

Political Researcher: Naif Shaban

Idlib 15 August 2024