Chaos in Syria and the future of America

Newly installed Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa recently made his first address to the nation. After working for years to distance himself from his roots as a former al-Qaeda operative, he is now vowing to deliver inclusive and democratic governance for the war-torn country.

Here’s the problem: much of the country doesn’t want what he wants.

Why Syria is so divided and divisive

Al-Sharaa led an Islamist group that overthrew the Assad regime last year, then dissolved the Syrian parliament and nullified the country’s 2012 constitution. While his coalition controls Damascus, they hold less than half of the country’s territory.

The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fights alongside US troops to combat the Islamic State and controls vast swaths of northeast Syria. Druze militias hold key positions in the southwest. Both Druze and Kurdish leaders have said they have no plans to surrender their arms or submit to a centralized government.

Such fragmentation has been a central fact of life in Syria since the modern country was formed. The region had been ruled by the Ottoman Empire for centuries, but they were part of the Central Powers that lost World War I. The area was then placed under French control until achieving independence in 1946.

A 1963 coup by the Ba’ath Party suspended constitutional protections for citizens, running the country under martial law. Hafez al-Assad took control in 1970, establishing a hereditary dictatorship. When he died in 2000, he was succeeded by his son, Bashar.

The Assad regime became embroiled in a multi-sided civil war following the Arab Spring of 2011, leading to a refugee crisis in which more than six million Syrians were displaced from the country. The Islamic State took control of much of the country; US forces have since worked with various factions to reduce ISIS’s power in the region.

The demographics of Syria reveal a central reason for the unrest that has plagued the nation: while the majority are Syrian Arabs, there are sizable minorities of Kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians, Circassians, and Armenians. Nearly three-fourths of the population is Sunni Muslim, but 13 percent are Shia, 10 percent are Christian, and 3 percent are Druze.

As we noted, these various demographics are located in distinct regions of the country, with the Druze in the southwest and the Kurds in the northeast. Each wants autonomy for its people. The “unity” of the country has largely been enforced by autocrats utilizing brutal oppression to control the people they claim to serve.

How George Washington avoided a monarchy

Like Syria, the United States, at its founding, was composed of a variety of different demographics and ideologies. Agrarian life in southern colonies was very different from the more urban composition of northern colonies. Various religious worldviews prevailed as well: Catholics founded the colony of Maryland, while Baptists led in founding Rhode Island, Quakers founded Pennsylvania, Puritans founded New England colonies, and the southern colonies were primarily Anglican.

Unlike Syria, however, America’s governance was formulated through a system of representative democracy. The colonists had seen first-hand the oppression of a single ruler and wanted freedom and self-governance for themselves. They, therefore, forged a republic made of states with significant autonomy and a centralized federal government to do what the states could not do for themselves (such as wage war against the country’s enemies).

George Washington was especially concerned about avoiding any appearance of monarchy or dictatorship in the office of president he was the first to occupy. Despite calls to use his military command to take power over the infant nation, he resigned his military command immediately upon winning the War for Independence. When elected president, he avoided public displays of adulation and stepped down voluntarily after his second term in office.

He and the other Founders forged a nation governed by laws, elections, and courts to which leaders would be accountable. The “separation of powers” that our Constitution created serves to prevent unchecked authority by any individual or group. The citizens would rule themselves through the leaders they elected and the laws these leaders enacted.

The “indispensable supports” of our democracy

However, the Founders understood that even this system, while brilliantly inclusive and effective in preventing dictatorial authority, is insufficient for the flourishing of the nation. They were adamant that public morality born of personal religion would be essential for the country they forged.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington stated clearly, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” He added, “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

John Adams, our second president, was equally adamant: “We have no government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

At the heart of American society is the declaration that “all men are created equal.” When we have lived up to this founding creed, our nation has flourished. When we have not, as with our “original sin” of slavery, we have devolved into civil war and the horrific oppression of some of our people.

This commitment to equality is itself born of the biblical worldview and claim that each of us is created uniquely in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and thereby a person of sacred worth. The aspiration, “Equal Justice Under the Law,” inscribed above the main entrance to the US Supreme Court building, is one expression of this theological truth.

Tocqueville on the future of America

Repression is typically a fact of life in autocracies, whether in Syria, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, or other dictatorships. Individual freedom and social flourishing are more typically a fact of life in democratic republics such as the US and much of the West. The latter is threatened less by external powers than by internal decay.

As Abraham Lincoln warned, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

This means that the future of our nation depends largely on the spiritual vitality and resulting moral cohesion of our people. And such vitality and cohesion are less the result of governing authorities than of personal faith.

In Democracy in America, the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville urged Americans to continue embracing the religious commitments that he considered foundational to the nation’s current and future success. He warned: “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst us.”

And he stated clearly,

“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

If the future of our nation depends on the faith of her people, and if you and I are the “salt” and “light” of our society (Matthew 5:13–16), our personal commitment to Christ is vital to our nation.

How fully will you serve your country by serving your Lord today?