On the Release of Political Prisoners in Syria and Human Rights
There are good reasons for cheering the freeing of political prisoners held in Syria after the fall of the Baath rule. Indeed, no one should be imprisoned for political expression or for belonging to a political trend that disagrees with the ruling party. Therefore, probing evidence of torture and holding those responsible should be the most urgent action, but it must be done independently and transparently.
The collapsed Syrian government, like all other governments around the world, created a “label” for social groups it wants to target, legislate a law that criminalize the “label”, and use the law to justify all its abuses. In the last 24 years alone, the Syrian government attached the label “terrorism” to all groups that have opposed its rule, and in many cases, even to those who called for political reform, and used the designation to justify exclusion, imprisonment, and torture of political opponents.
The swift and relatively “peaceful” collapse of the Baath government this time, spared the Syrian people much death and destruction that they are all very familiar with. However, the political change is rooted in extreme violence that persisted for more than 14 years, a time during which all armed entities committed human rights abuses. It is unlikely that human rights abuses will end with the fall of Baath government.
Earlier this year, for weeks, Syrians in Idlib took to the streets to protest the rule and practices of some of the groups that governed northwest Syrian. From March to May (2024), protesters came out to challenge the policies and practices of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, calling for the “removal of its leader Abu Muhammad al-Joulani, the release of detainees, and the improvement of living conditions.” One courageous protester, Mazen Ziwani, told The Associated Press that he “came out against injustice. We don’t want al-Golani and we don’t want the security fist. We want the prisoners of opinion to be out.” (AP, May 17). These armed groups, which are now in charge of the security of all of Syria (except the region still under Kurdish control), had used labels, too, to justify human rights abuses they inflicted on Syrian under their rule. It is likely that their practices will now continue on a wider scale, given the security challenges they will face for the foreseeable future.
From a human rights advocacy perspective, a change in power is rarely a reason for celebration, for history and facts tell us that all those in power are, eventually, abusers of human rights. The difference is that a change in power is accompanied by a change in targeting of which social groups will be next in line for abuse.
The Syrian Baath government targeted Islamists and Kurdish nationalists for exclusion and abuse. The new rulers of Syria will use the label of “remnants of Assad regime”, “sleeper cells”, and “shabbiha” to target anyone who might represent a threat to their rule or even just disagree with their vision for Syria. Those who support the new rulers will ignore or downplay the new rulers’ abuses, and those who oppose the new rulers will amplify the abuse; meanwhile, the abuse will go on.
This reality shows that human rights abuse is ultimately a situation of musical chairs—wherein the abuser and abused change roles without ending the cycle of abuse. Such a pattern can be broken, or the harm could be reduced, if those in power stop criminalizing by label; and apply the law to actions instead. In other words, instead of imprisoning everyone labelled “terrorist” by those in power, the law should be applied to specific acts that are clearly acts of terrorism. While such an approach would still leave room for abuse, criminalizing the act instead of a social group will at least limit the scale of abuse.
These comments about the persistence of human rights abuses should not dishearten those who advocate for human rights. It should only make them realist and be aware that human rights abuse is essentially a crime committed by those in power against those who have no power to protect themselves. In other words, human rights abuse is always perpetrated by the State, or a powerful entity that functions as the State. The more powerful a ruler is the more likely they will abuse their power and the less likely they will be held to account. Therefore, human rights advocates cannot cheer a change of power holder; they need to recalibrate and prepare for the next campaign advocating for the next group of victims regardless of who they are and regardless of the label created by those in power to justify their abuses on a wider scale.
First Draft, December 9, 2024; Ahmed Souaiaia Edited, December 11, 2024; Editors; Interns Revised & Approved, December 19, 2024; Ahmed Souaiaia Resvised and published, January 31, 2025, Editors