Thomas Jefferson and the Syrian revolution 2011-2012
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
- Declaration of Independence (1776)
Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States of America was a strong believer in natural law and his most famous writing, the Declaration of Independence is a testament to the rights that natural law bestows on men. In writing the Declaration, Jefferson stated he did so “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of” and this is evident as his words strongly echo his intellectual forefathers, Locke and Rousseau.
As the author of the most eloquent statement of intent to revolt, Jefferson would strongly support the Syrian protesters challenge against the existing political order. The basis for this support stems from natural law. This reverence to natural law is derived from Locke who wrote that men in the state of nature were born with “perfect freedom to order their actions…as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without…depending upon the will of any other man” (II, 2nd Treatise on Government). Natural law deems that the state of nature was also a state of equality and thus men have the right to rebel when their freedoms are infringed upon.
Jefferson believes that men become a “people” when they are bound by a common interest, which in turn gives them the right to organize the government which best enables them to pursue this interest. Jefferson would consider the Syrian protesters a people because they have coalesced around a common interest of greater political freedoms – the right to participate, removal of emergency rule – and better treatment of basic human rights. He famously said that “when governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”. Furthermore, as a supporter of the Bill of Rights, Jefferson would understand and support the Syrian protesters’ desire for a government that does not rule by force and terror like the Assad regime has.
Jefferson writes that in the facilitation of these rights (i.e. the common interest), “…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. This basis of social contract with respect to the pursuit of inalienable rights pays homage to both Locke and Rousseau; both believed that governments derived their power from the people and that consent is based on securing, maintaining and improving their rights. The power government has is only as strong and valid as the permission they have from the populace. The legitimacy of the Assad regime ended for Jefferson when the people demanded that he step down from power in April 2011.
Jefferson does not take revolting against leaders lightly; “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations” as the Assad regime is guilty of is committed, then the power to revolt is not just warranted but obligatory to man. When the government fails to provide for the common interest, he writes “…it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles… [that]…seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness”. Law is derived from the people and their inherent natural rights, and so they have a right to dissolve a government that does not support or propagate their common interest. As such, Jefferson would sympathize with the Syrian protesters and passionately support their natural right to revolt against the Assad regime, and to organize a government that better secures their common interest.
- Declaration of Independence (1776)
Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States of America was a strong believer in natural law and his most famous writing, the Declaration of Independence is a testament to the rights that natural law bestows on men. In writing the Declaration, Jefferson stated he did so “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of” and this is evident as his words strongly echo his intellectual forefathers, Locke and Rousseau.
As the author of the most eloquent statement of intent to revolt, Jefferson would strongly support the Syrian protesters challenge against the existing political order. The basis for this support stems from natural law. This reverence to natural law is derived from Locke who wrote that men in the state of nature were born with “perfect freedom to order their actions…as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without…depending upon the will of any other man” (II, 2nd Treatise on Government). Natural law deems that the state of nature was also a state of equality and thus men have the right to rebel when their freedoms are infringed upon.
Jefferson believes that men become a “people” when they are bound by a common interest, which in turn gives them the right to organize the government which best enables them to pursue this interest. Jefferson would consider the Syrian protesters a people because they have coalesced around a common interest of greater political freedoms – the right to participate, removal of emergency rule – and better treatment of basic human rights. He famously said that “when governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”. Furthermore, as a supporter of the Bill of Rights, Jefferson would understand and support the Syrian protesters’ desire for a government that does not rule by force and terror like the Assad regime has.
Jefferson writes that in the facilitation of these rights (i.e. the common interest), “…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. This basis of social contract with respect to the pursuit of inalienable rights pays homage to both Locke and Rousseau; both believed that governments derived their power from the people and that consent is based on securing, maintaining and improving their rights. The power government has is only as strong and valid as the permission they have from the populace. The legitimacy of the Assad regime ended for Jefferson when the people demanded that he step down from power in April 2011.
Jefferson does not take revolting against leaders lightly; “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations” as the Assad regime is guilty of is committed, then the power to revolt is not just warranted but obligatory to man. When the government fails to provide for the common interest, he writes “…it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles… [that]…seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness”. Law is derived from the people and their inherent natural rights, and so they have a right to dissolve a government that does not support or propagate their common interest. As such, Jefferson would sympathize with the Syrian protesters and passionately support their natural right to revolt against the Assad regime, and to organize a government that better secures their common interest.
James Madison and the New Syrian Government
Having established Jefferson’s support for the protesters through the Declaration of Independence, we will consider what form of government his fellow Founding Fathers, namely James Madison, would prescribe for a new Syria. Both Madison and Jefferson believed in a participatory republic where each individual in the traditions of Aristotle, the ancient Romans and Rousseau, would actively be engaged in the political process. Jefferson himself believed in the primacy of a small republic where the local government was the site of political participation and action. However, Syria despite its small size has a population of approximately 26 million which is a size that makes the small republic a difficult proposition. Rousseau would also concur as he believes the larger the state, the more freedoms are diminished within it as the relevance of one's actions become less apparent. Syrians are also conditioned to a strong, authoritarian government; with no strong democratic traditions or culture, a new government would have to ensure broad political participation but also a firm central government. Hence, the advice offered by the Founding Fathers will appropriately be on the national scale.
Factions are an excellent place to begin this discussion for two reasons. The first is that natural law deems that authority is derived from the people thus the formation of factions (and its interests pursued) in a new Syria is relevant to the government formed (and potentially dissolved). Secondly, factions have tremendous propensity for growth in a heterogeneous Syria. Jefferson believes that a common interest binds the population into a natural political unit in which the bonds between the people are maintained through respect, rationality and persuasion. It is difficult say that is true of the heterogeneous cleavages in modern day Syria which have been devastated by sectarian (religious) violence over the years.
What complicates Syria is that the politics is secular yet governance can be exceedingly sectarian. The existing Assad regime is based on Baathist socialist principles but represents a minority sect, the Alawites (Shi’a), whose consolidation of power is in part driven by the fear of repression under a coalition of sects or rule by other sects. This fear is a legitimate threat to them as witnessed during the attempted power grab by the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in 1982 (Holliday 2012). Currently, the common interest of freedom from a tyrannical regime has a distinctly secular theme in the uprisings but Holliday notes that the majority of protesters are Sunni and have not attracted the other minority sects in the country (2012). Thus, there is no guarantee that a successful revolution by the Sunni majority rebels against Assad would lead to a government that has the consent of the “people” or will work towards “all” their interests. It is accurate to say that the current Alawite faction has its interests running the nation; a new Syria cannot be run by a Sunni faction.
What complicates Syria is that the politics is secular yet governance can be exceedingly sectarian. The existing Assad regime is based on Baathist socialist principles but represents a minority sect, the Alawites (Shi’a), whose consolidation of power is in part driven by the fear of repression under a coalition of sects or rule by other sects. This fear is a legitimate threat to them as witnessed during the attempted power grab by the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in 1982 (Holliday 2012). Currently, the common interest of freedom from a tyrannical regime has a distinctly secular theme in the uprisings but Holliday notes that the majority of protesters are Sunni and have not attracted the other minority sects in the country (2012). Thus, there is no guarantee that a successful revolution by the Sunni majority rebels against Assad would lead to a government that has the consent of the “people” or will work towards “all” their interests. It is accurate to say that the current Alawite faction has its interests running the nation; a new Syria cannot be run by a Sunni faction.
What contributes to the growth of factions in Syria is the composition of the population. As the chart shows, there is a strong split between Sunni, Shi’a and others which breaks the country into majority and minority segments. The age old conflict between the Sunni, Shi’a and other religious groups is not unique to Syria; it is prevalent in all Islamic countries. Similarly, Syria does not have a tradition of Sunnis and Shi’a co-existing peacefully and participating fairly in the political process. However, the Framers successfully wrestled with a similar issue when reconciling the Federalists and anti-Federalists. They sought to create a national civic culture and unite the various colonies into one nation; they did this by designing a republic where people contributed to common good of society when following their natural instinct of self-interest. Under this aegis, it might be possible to unite the various sects in Syria into one national identity.
In these circumstances where factions are likely to grow, Madison’s delegation of authority as articulated in Federalist No. 10 could prove helpful in controlling them in a nascent Syrian government. He considers factions as “sown in the nature of man” and that “the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects”. This belief that liberty should be encouraged and not suppressed in handing factions is appropriate given Syria’s repressive inclinations. Madison would suggest that the new Syria be a republic than a pure democracy; in a pure democracy, the majority faction of the Sunni Muslims would be unchecked and Syria would again descend into another authoritarian and sectarian disaster.
A modification to the Connecticut Compromise would provide a suitable blueprint for a new Syrian legislative body. A strong bicameral legislature (i.e. both chambers have equal power) in which one chamber will be directly elected in a proportional representation electoral system whilst the other chamber will have a fixed number of representatives distributed equally amongst the various sects and directly elected by the people. The proportional representation system will ensure that elected officials will be commensurate to the various cleavages in the population. The second chamber will guarantee equality amongst the various groups and ensure there is no unchecked majority faction that would legislate an agenda “adverse to the rights of citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Federalist No. 10).
In addition to the advantages raised by these modifications, the new Syrian republic can also enjoy the traditional protections from factions as stated by Madison: “take in a greater variety of parties and interests…less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult…to act in unison with each other” (Federalist No. 10). Additionally, the secular nature of Syrian political parties means that political philosophies are more centrifugal than centripetal; this limits the dangerous effects of fragmentation and polarization on the legislature that can result from a proportional representation electoral system.What this method of dealing with factions also highlights is the Founding Fathers’ view on those judging in their own interest. Syria has been a prime example of those making the rules doing so toward their own betterment at the expense of others – this form of the republic and legislature should help counter that in the new Syria.
Another element of governance proposed by Madison which will prevent a return to the preponderance of power is the notion of checks and balances. By ensuring no one branch of government has excessive power, Madison would hope to curb the ambitious and authoritarian streak shown by previous Syrian leaders which has been a bane to Syria. Furthermore, in conjunction with the republic model, the three separate but equal branches of government – executive, legislative, and judiciary – “will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself” (Federalist No. 51).
A modification to the Connecticut Compromise would provide a suitable blueprint for a new Syrian legislative body. A strong bicameral legislature (i.e. both chambers have equal power) in which one chamber will be directly elected in a proportional representation electoral system whilst the other chamber will have a fixed number of representatives distributed equally amongst the various sects and directly elected by the people. The proportional representation system will ensure that elected officials will be commensurate to the various cleavages in the population. The second chamber will guarantee equality amongst the various groups and ensure there is no unchecked majority faction that would legislate an agenda “adverse to the rights of citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Federalist No. 10).
In addition to the advantages raised by these modifications, the new Syrian republic can also enjoy the traditional protections from factions as stated by Madison: “take in a greater variety of parties and interests…less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult…to act in unison with each other” (Federalist No. 10). Additionally, the secular nature of Syrian political parties means that political philosophies are more centrifugal than centripetal; this limits the dangerous effects of fragmentation and polarization on the legislature that can result from a proportional representation electoral system.What this method of dealing with factions also highlights is the Founding Fathers’ view on those judging in their own interest. Syria has been a prime example of those making the rules doing so toward their own betterment at the expense of others – this form of the republic and legislature should help counter that in the new Syria.
Another element of governance proposed by Madison which will prevent a return to the preponderance of power is the notion of checks and balances. By ensuring no one branch of government has excessive power, Madison would hope to curb the ambitious and authoritarian streak shown by previous Syrian leaders which has been a bane to Syria. Furthermore, in conjunction with the republic model, the three separate but equal branches of government – executive, legislative, and judiciary – “will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself” (Federalist No. 51).
CONCLUSION
John Jay noted in Federalist No. 2 that Providence smiled on the Americans by making them “…a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” – Syrians have not been so lucky in that regard. For a new Syrian government to function effectively in the traditions of the Founding Fathers, the common interest must remain unified and not limited to one group or become dominated by factions. This is always a concern for a Syrian people quick to identify with religious identity before nationality. Jefferson would hope the natural rights espoused in the Declaration of Independence would encourage that universal pursuit of freedoms the protesters now seek. He would also hope that it act as a reminder to those in power to not restrict this pursuit of life and liberty from any one sect. Similarly, Madison would hope that the element of factions be controlled through the republicanism he espoused in Federalist No. 10. By limiting the access and influences factions might have to power and by instilling a new sense of national identity and common interest, a new Syria can hope to be a grand experiment and a beacon of hope to other Middle Eastern countries just like the thirteen states were some two hundred years ago.