Born as a revolutionary vision for Arab unity, freedom, and socialism, Ba’athism promised liberation from colonialism. But under the Assad dynasty, it was twisted into a tool for brutal dictatorship, leaving its legacy in ruins. Here’s the story of how an ideology of hope became a symbol of oppression.
On December 8, 2024, the shocking news of the collapse of the Ba’ath regime in Syria, led by one of the most brutal dictators in recent history, Bashar al-Assad, reached the world. Many people in Europe began encountering the term “Ba’ath” in the news, but a surprisingly large number of them did not actually know what it meant. Those who had heard of the ruling Ba’ath Party in Syria may have thought it was just the name of the party. However, those interested in the political history of the Middle East know that Ba’ath refers to one of the region’s most significant ideologies. Over the years, it has transformed from an original idea born out of Syria’s political situation after the French colonial era and the disastrous consequences of war.
This article aims to provide a brief summary of the history of the Ba’ath Party and an explanation of the ideas that formed the ideology of Ba’athism.
To avoid turning this into a biography of any political figure, only the most important contributions of key individuals that cannot be overlooked will be mentioned. The ideas behind the Ba’ath Party, as formulated by figures such as Akram Al-Hourani, Michel Aflaq, Salah Al-Din Al-Bitar, and others mentioned later in this article, will be explained within the necessary context.
As a Syrian, I will concentrate mainly on the Syrian Ba’ath, but reading more about the Iraqi branch and the differences between them is also recommended. This is particularly relevant as, for much of the Ba’ath’s time in Syria and Iraq, the two Ba’athist countries were adversaries. Ba’athist Syria under Hafez al-Assad even joined the international coalition to fight against Iraq in Kuwait, alongside the United States, against another country that was not only Arab but also Ba’athist. This highlights that Assad’s true focus was never Arabism or socialism but solely authority and power.
The most important point is that this article is intended only to provide a brief explanation of the history of the Ba’ath in Syria and the ideas of Ba’athism, and not to whitewash or normalize the atrocities committed by Hafez al-Assad and, later, his son Bashar in the name of the Ba’ath. The Assad family’s rule brought torture, imprisonment, and murder to Syria, while denying Syrians basic human rights and plundering the country’s resources for decades—all in the name of the Ba’ath. During the Assad era, all Ba’athist ideological thinkers were either imprisoned, exiled, or killed. The Assad Ba’ath had one belief only: loyalty to the Assad family.
Brief History of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party
One of the numerous anti-colonialist movements that emerged in response to occupation and the struggle for self-determination in the post-World War II Arab world was the Ba’ath movement. This movement was established by Michel Aflaq and Salah Al-Din Al-Bitar in Paris, where they were studying. The popularity of such a movement can be attributed to the division of the Arab world by superpowers without consideration for the indigenous populations of the region. This division led to the emergence of Arab nationalist ideologies in various locations.
The first founding conference of the Ba’ath Party was convened by Aflaq and Bitar at the Alrasheed Café in Damascus on April 7, 1947. This three-day conference resulted in the drafting of the constitution of the Arab Ba’ath Party. In 1952, the Party unified with Akram Al-Hourani’s Arab Socialist Party to form the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. This unification provided the Ba’ath with the populist momentum it required, as prior to this, the Party had been regarded as an “academic and intellectual elites’ party.”
Akram Al-Hourani, known as the “Red Capitalist” due to his socialist ideology and support for the working class despite his background as the son of a landowner, was a pivotal figure in this merger. Al-Hourani developed a socialist ideology, regarding capitalists as the source of all political problems. He also believed in the political role of the military and had strong connections with high-ranking military officers. This made him a multifaceted figure who was simultaneously controversial, appreciated, and respected for his profound influence on Syrian politics and ideals. These ideals cost him greatly, as he was later forced into exile by dictator Hafez al-Assad, where he remained until his death. Al-Hourani’s ideas, which subsequently influenced the Ba’ath Party following its merger, were chiefly concerned with narrowing the socio-economic divide between rural farmers and urban residents in Syria. This objective earned him considerable popularity among Syria’s impoverished population.
The importance of Al-Hourani in Syrian politics peaked during the 1950s, when he wielded significant influence over Syrian policies and became a pivotal figure in politics. He was a well-known and respected politician, a clever man with strong connections to army officials. This was significant, as even during the period of Syrian parliamentary democracy, army officials played a major role in the country’s political life. In conclusion, it is evident that Al-Hourani’s contributions to the Ba’ath Party were substantial.
He infused the party with significant ideological and theoretical weight, enhancing its popularity among Syrian farmers and playing a key role in the politicization of the Syrian military. Al-Hourani’s actions were driven by a genuine intention and a theoretical perspective that emphasized the military’s role as a political instrument to uphold democracy and safeguard it, rather than militarism for the sake of dominance by military officials. However, it is important to note that outcomes often diverged from Al-Hourani’s expectations. While describing his thoughts on the first military coup in Syria by Husni al-Zaim, he initially believed in maintaining a minimal connection with the latter. However, he found it unfeasible to sustain this relationship. Consequently, he initiated a campaign to denounce Husni al-Zaim’s actions after his ascension to power, as the coup began to transform into a dictatorial regime.
Al-Hourani’s relationship with the military had its ups and downs. He fundamentally opposed any attempt by the military to seize authority from civilian leadership. He repeatedly joined the opposition against military leadership, which ultimately led to his establishment of the Arab Socialist Party in 1950. From this point, he began fostering increasingly positive relations with the Ba’ath Party of Aflaq and Bitar. At the time, Al-Hourani stated that he believed the Ba’ath Party represented the sole ally of his Arab Socialists, given their ideological similarities and the political situation of the time. These factors compelled Al-Hourani to turn to the opposition and move to Lebanon. Ultimately, this led to the merging of the Arab Ba’ath Party and the Arab Socialist Party into the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. Following the success of Al-Hourani’s opposition movement against President Adib al-Shishakli, he utilized his network within the military to compel it to “return to its barracks” and refrain from interfering in civilian political and parliamentary life in Syria, a practice that persisted from 1954 to 1958.
The Baath during the United Arab Republic
In the aftermath of the tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956, triggered by President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, the Ba’ath Party garnered significant popular support due to its stance in favor of Egypt. This support facilitated the unification process, culminating in the establishment of the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt in 1958. Before the unification, President Nasser demanded the dissolution of all Syrian parties, particularly Arabist parties such as the Ba’ath, which complied accordingly. In retrospect, this may have been an error in judgment.
The United Arab Republic (UAR) dissolved in 1961 for various reasons beyond the scope of this article. However, it is safe to say that a primary cause was the deteriorating relationship between Nasser and the Ba’ath, which was replaced by suspicion and tension rather than mutual ideological goals. Furthermore, the Egyptian government’s policies led to the unification process being perceived as an act of annexation. This generated frustration among the Syrian population. These policies ultimately resulted in Al-Hourani’s resignation from his position as deputy to Nasser in the northern region of the UAR. This decision deepened his skepticism toward the UAR itself.
The ideological figures of the Ba’ath, including Al-Hourani and Aflaq, anticipated playing significant roles in shaping Syria’s political sphere within the UAR, envisioning collaboration with Nasser. However, developments revealed that their influence in shaping UAR politics was far less substantial than anticipated. Despite this, Aflaq remained opposed to the secessionist movement, leading a faction of the Ba’ath Party. Meanwhile, Al-Hourani advocated for Syria’s re-establishment of independence from Egypt, a position that garnered significant support from a large segment of the Ba’ath Party.
This period of instability within the Ba’ath during the UAR era was also marked by the emergence of conspiracy groups, such as the “Military Committee,” led by Salah Jadid, Hafez al-Assad, and Muhammad Omran. This group gained more influence than the ideological and political Ba’ath figures of the time.
The Baath in post-United Arab Republic Syria
The Military Committee’s perspective on the Ba’ath was not driven by ideology but by an authoritarian outlook. Their primary objective was to secure power, which they achieved in 1963. This event is referred to by various names, including the “Jadid Coup” and the “Military Committee Coup.” Assad later referred to it as the “8th of March Revolution” after becoming Syria’s dictator in 1971, though it had little to do with revolutionary ideals and was purely a military coup. Following Assad’s consolidation of power in 1971, the ideological aspects of the Ba’ath were entirely destroyed. This marked the “year of the ideological end of the Ba’ath.” What remained was a tool for maintaining authority, whitewashing torture, and justifying inhumane acts.
The Ba’ath initially used the cause of reunification with Egypt to gain popular support, but after seizing power in 1963, they abandoned this goal and established an authoritarian regime in Syria. This led Al-Hourani to regret supporting Syria’s secession from the UAR. In his diaries, published in the 1970s, he expressed remorse for this decision, particularly after witnessing the rise of the Military Committee and the institutionalisation of torture and inhumane acts as the new dogma of the Ba’ath. Al-Hourani was later arrested and exiled. From exile, he described the Military Committee as responsible for Syria’s undoing, saying, “Because of them, Syria has lost everything we worked on for years.”
Aflaq and Al-Hourani were so academically and historically respected that even Assad sought their opinions (through intermediaries) while planning his coup against Jadid. Al-Hourani’s response foreshadowed the brutality and authoritarianism that would define Assad’s rule. In his diaries, he wrote:
“He wanted to ask me and Michel Aflaq our opinion on the coup d’état he was preparing. I told him I did not support the survival of Salah Jadid’s regime, which was built on intelligence services, the confiscation of freedoms, and torture. However, do not expect me to justify your coup. Past experience has taught me that any military coup will always be against the interests of Syria and democracy.”
These words became prophetic as Hafez al-Assad took power and ruled Syria with an iron fist until his death. Under his regime, political life in Syria was extinguished, and torture and death in prisons became the fate of any Syrian who failed to demonstrate complete loyalty.
All the ideological founders of the Ba’ath were executed, imprisoned, or exiled under Assad’s rule. Assad created a party that revolved entirely around him, selecting members solely based on loyalty to him, regardless of their abilities or political beliefs. Loyalty to Assad was the only principle upheld by his version of the Ba’ath.
Ba’ath ideology
“The Arabs form one nation. This nation has the natural right to live in a single state,” reads the first article of the Ba’ath Party’s constitution. “The Arab homeland belongs to the Arabs. They alone have the right to utilize its resources and its wealth and to control its potentialities,” it continues. These principles conclude that the Arab world constitutes “an indivisible political and economic unit,” and no single country can fulfil the condition of its existence isolated from the others.
This concept merges, albeit vaguely, socialism and Arabism through a Ba’ath lens. It contrasts with internationalist Marxism and frames Arabism not as racism or a belief in Arab superiority but as a solution to the post-colonial struggles of the Arab people. The goal was cultural independence and the development of policies and ideologies based on shared history and needs, distancing itself from chauvinistic interpretations of Arabism.
Socialism through a Ba’ath Lens
Describing Ba’ath socialism requires an understanding of the party’s evolution, as the definition of socialism was one of the key features distinguishing its different eras: classic Ba’ath (1947–1960), transitional Ba’ath (1960–1964), and new Ba’ath (1964–1966). These periods varied slightly depending on the source, as transitions between them were often vague.
During the classic Ba’ath era, socialism was viewed as a tool for achieving maximum prosperity within a unified Arab state, rather than an end goal. Arabism was the primary focus. According to Aflaq, Ba’ath socialism differed from European Marxism due to the Arab world’s unique circumstances. At the time, Syria had no real economy and was recovering from French occupation. The entire Arab world was reeling from the Balfour Declaration and its consequences, which made it impossible to prioritize socialism and class struggle over national concerns.
Aflaq and Bitar valued Arabism as a means of ensuring an independent Arab identity and developing policies grounded in Arab culture rather than recycling imported ideologies. The classical Ba’ath Party consisted of middle-class academic elites whose philosophical ideas did not initially reach the Syrian countryside.
After merging with Al-Hourani’s party, the Ba’ath’s priorities and views on socialism shifted leftward, gaining popularity among rural populations. This shift continued during the transitional Ba’ath era, which saw internal disagreements over Arabism and socialism, particularly following the UAR experience. Marxist factions within the party rose to prominence, emphasizing socialism as a goal for the Arab nation that could only be achieved through unity.
During the new Ba’ath era, dominated by the Military Committee, the party increasingly abandoned ideological principles in favor of authoritarianism. Under Assad’s rule, the Ba’ath transformed into a tool for consolidating power, and both Arabism and socialism lost their significance. The Ba’ath became little more than an empty word used by an egotistical, brutal leader with no theoretical grounding.
Ba’ath and Islam
While the Ba’ath is a secular ideology, it was never explicitly atheistic, unlike some leftist movements of the time. Aflaq regarded Islam as the “greatest intellectual product of the Arab nation,” viewing it as a cultural and historical asset rather than a theological framework for governance. This position often placed the Ba’ath at odds with religious conservatives and Marxist atheists. The Ba’ath’s secularism aimed (in theory) to unite Arabs of all faiths under a shared nationalist identity rather than divide them along religious lines.
The Ba’ath and Parliamentary Democracy
For those who associate the Ba’ath solely with dictators like the Assads in Syria or Saddam Hussein in Iraq, it may be surprising to learn that Ba’athist ideology initially supported parliamentary democracy. During Syria’s “democratic years” of the 1950s, the Ba’ath had significant representation in parliament. This era saw the unification with Nasser’s Egypt in 1958, forming the short-lived United Arab Republic. However, following the UAR’s collapse in 1961, the Military Committee seized control of the Ba’ath, ending its democratic aspirations.
The Assad regime’s exploitation of the Ba’ath’s name and values arguably inflicted more damage on its legacy than any external force. By the time Hafez al-Assad rose to power, the Ba’ath had devolved into little more than a vehicle for authoritarianism. Assad dismantled its ideological foundations, repurposing the party as a tool for personal rule. He eradicated its influence as a political force and transformed Syria from a parliamentary democracy into a monarchy-like system. Upon his death, his son, Bashar al-Assad, assumed the presidency. To enable this transition, the constitutional minimum age for the presidency was hastily lowered from 40 to 34—conveniently matching Bashar’s age—without regard for legal principles or the will of the Syrian people. Bashar continued his father’s legacy of repression and authoritarianism, turning Syria into one of the most oppressive dictatorships in modern history.
In conclusion, Ba’athism began as a response to colonialism and a call for Arab unity and socialism. However, under the Assad family’s rule, it became synonymous with repression and dictatorship. The ideals of its founders—unity, freedom, and socialism—were betrayed, leaving behind a legacy tarnished by decades of authoritarianism.
Wird geladen ...
