Print This Post
13 June 2014, Gateway House

Assad: baptism by a brutal ballot

Basher Assad has been voted to power in Syria in an election which is widely regarded as lacking legitimacy. This will be Assad’s third term in office and his victory is an indication of the control he continues to wield despite growing western backing of opposition groups

Professor, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University

post image

As with Iraq and Afghanistan after the U.S. invasions, or Egypt after the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, so also in Syria: the challenge of legitimising the political leadership with the ‘people’s’ imprimatur.

It was never about demonstrating people’s power or the success of democracy. The first elections under U.S. occupation in both Iraq and Afghanistan were equally flawed, as was the ascendancy of Egypt’s Marshal Sisi after the democratically-elected Morsi was forced out of office by the same people who had elected him.

After three years of a raging civil war, the fact that a general election could even be held under the new constitution established after the 2012 referendum, is itself a sign of Bashar Assad’s staying power.

It was reported that ‘overwhelming’ numbers voted in government-controlled areas of the country, even amid mortar attacks in Damascus. The government kept the peace with helicopter bombardment of rebel-controlled areas of the north and east.

Out of a population of twenty three million, four million refugees and two million internally-displaced were among those allowed to vote so long as they returned to their habitual places of residence.

Fifteen million was the estimated voter strength and for the first time Assad’s was not the only name on the ballot.

The other two, approved by the Syrian Constitutional Court, Hassan Abdulla al-Nouri, an MP from Damascus and head of the National Initiative for Administration and Change, and Maher Abdul Hafiz al-Hajjar, MP from Aleppo from the opposition People’s Will Party, were not expected to win.

Assad’s victory for another seven-year term will no doubt show that he still controls important levers of power in the country, despite increasing western and regional backing of the fractious opposition groups through funds and sophisticated military and communication equipment.

The civil war has taken a heavy toll on the economy, politics and society of this pivotal country in the Middle East.

Three years of violent internal strife have seen the opposition groups being taken over by radical Islamists linked to the al-Qaeda – like the al-Nusra Front.

There are up to 120,000 Salafist fighters from various countries, including France and the U.S., special commando forces from regional countries, a proliferation of heavy weapons, and chemical weapons that are used by both sides against the people they profess to protect.

After the failure of the Geneva conferences, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and UN Special Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi have given up efforts to bring the two sides to the negotiating table.

Syria’s GDP has shrunk by 40% GDP during these three years of war, national debt has grown to 126% and damage to property is estimated at $144 billion. The Syrian people continue to suffer privation, particularly of medical supplies and food, and 4,000 schools remain shut.

The divided UN Security Council is once again working on a Resolution – which Russia will not veto – to provide immediate humanitarian relief in rebel-held areas. The U.S. and EU’s plunge in relations with Russia following the Ukraine crisis raises concerns whether this would be possible.

But for the steadfast support from Russia and China, this war would have probably ended earlier, leaving in its wake a Libya-like situation with the country carved up between different rebel groups owing allegiance to their religious masters, or regional/western sponsors.

In fact, this is the future the Syrian people will confront if the Assad regime is dislodged. The vociferously critical western powers do not appear to have a Plan B in place, which could usher in internal peace and enable reconstruction.

In the post-election scenario, the imperative is to take immediate steps to cease violence and stop military operations by both the government and the diverse rebel forces, in order to isolate and sequester the radical groups linked to the al Qaeda.

This can only be accomplished by an agreement within the UN Security Council, which would also use the good offices of countries like India, Brazil and South Africa. It is only then that medical and humanitarian relief can be reached to the Syrian population. For this purpose, the mandate of the UN dis-engagement force (UNDOF) on the Golan could be widened to undertake this task. It would save the time and money required to position another UN force.

This first step can then be built upon to make yet another effort to trigger political negotiations on the future of Syria – a country which sits at the cross-roads of the civilisational, political, religious and societal currents which beset West Asia today.

Rajendra Abhyankar is Visiting Professor, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, U.S.; he was India’s Ambassador to Syria from 1992 to 1996.

This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.

For interview requests with the author, or for permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.in.

© Copyright 2014 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited

TAGGED UNDER: ,