Enab Baladi – Yamen Moghrabi

The Head of the Syrian regime, Bashar al-Assad, delivered a speech at the People’s Assembly in Damascus on August 25, where he discussed socialism and not relinquishing it in the country.

Al-Assad’s talk about the economic model, which is one of the three slogans of the ruling Baath Party in Syria (Unity – Freedom – Socialism), coincides with changes imposed by the war realities in the country, the ongoing economic crisis of recent years, as well as the recent moves concerning the partnership between the public and private sectors, and the sale of state-owned assets to companies, some of which directly belong to Bashar al-Assad himself, or his wife Asma, as well as to allies Russia and Iran.

In his speech, al-Assad stated that “hard choices do not mean a coup against our policies nor a coup against the state’s commitments to the citizens, and we will not take off our socialist mantle.”

Since the Baath Party came to power through a military coup in 1963, it has followed socialist policies with varying intensity according to the ruling parties within the party itself until Hafez al-Assad came to power through another coup against his comrades in 1971 and established socialist policies practically reliant on an active role for the public sector albeit without fully applying the principle.

Despite the socialist slogans adopted by his party, al-Assad the father maintained contact with the businessmen of Damascus and Aleppo, as well as private economic activities. The economic reality began to change with Bashar al-Assad’s accession to power in 2000.

However, in practice, socialism did not only come with the rise of the Baath Party to power. According to a study published by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in March 2022, Syria adopted this approach in managing its political and economic affairs since 1963, with state ownership of means of production, management, and economic cooperation.

Regime’s movements do not indicate socialism

Practically, with his rise to power, Bashar al-Assad began to lean towards more open economic policies within the “social market economy”, by allowing private banks and schools to enter and liberalizing some prices while maintaining the support of essential materials such as fuel, bread, and others. Hence, Syria continued within a socialist approach, albeit not fully implemented.

The war economy imposed a new economic reality on the Syrian regime after directing state resources towards the military effort, associated with privatization operations and selling projects owned by the state, whether through leasing ports, phosphate extraction, or investment in Damascus International Airport.

These movements were accompanied by continuous announcements about lifting government subsidies from segments of the population, including fuel, bread, and domestic gas.

Thus, al-Assad’s speech before the People’s Assembly that Syria “did not take off the socialist mantle” contradicts the country’s current economic reality at least. Researcher in economics Dr. Firas Shaabo told Enab Baladi that Syria was never fully implementing socialism.

With al-Assad the younger coming to power, he transitioned to a social market economy, which did not quite suit the old guards (officials from Hafez al-Assad’s era), as some individuals divided the economic pie and shared it with the state, which is undesirable from the regime’s perspective.

Shaabo sees al-Assad’s talk about socialism as taking a political rather than an economic path, signaling the return of the Baath Party to the forefront again and its leadership of the state and society.

Over the past years, al-Assad has focused on the Baath Party’s return to the political forefront, showing clear interest in its recent internal elections and conducting several changes within it.

From his side, economic researcher Zaki Mahshi told Enab Baladi that the Syrian economy is neither socialist in word or deed, it is “crony capitalism” and repositioning for its benefit with significant rent-seeking investments for some figures.

Public employment has long been halted, and salaries are low, even below the poverty line, with commodity prices being liberalized including supported ones sold at the free market prices.

Socialism in Syria

A study published by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in March 2022 explained that Syria adopted a socialist approach in managing its political and economic affairs since 1936, a system based on state ownership of the means of production, management, and economic cooperation.

With Hafez al-Assad coming to power in 1970, restrictions on individual projects and the private sector were eased, but this did not significantly aid in activating the country’s economic cycle due to corruption and the continuation of some structural constraints that hinder investment.

In the 1980s, Syria found itself politically isolated and amid a suffocating economic crisis, according to the study, where the real GDP per capita declined by 22% between 1982 and 1989. Extensive nationalization of factories, plants, and lands led to a significant part of the national capital fleeing abroad, while a government capitalist layer emerged benefiting from corruption and the absence of economic freedoms to accumulate large fortunes.

These factors led to a deterioration in living conditions, increasing poverty, and unemployment, especially among the youth, causing a decline in the industrial and agricultural sectors’ contributions to the GDP to unprecedented levels.

With the end of the Cold War and the cessation of external aid, the Syrian government implemented a series of economic reforms starting in 1990, under which the Syrian economy saw strong growth throughout the nineties, reflecting on the per capita GDP during the period between 2000 and 2010. The average income of a Syrian individual doubled from approximately 1200 US dollars in 2000 to about 2800 dollars in 2010.

Mismanagement of the crisis that erupted after the start of the Syrian revolution in 2011 inflicted significant losses on the Syrian economy. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) estimated its value at about 442 billion dollars by the end of 2020.

Syria incapable of this model

Socialism, economically speaking, relies on public ownership of the state that controls natural resources and production, including institutions, machines, and factories producing goods, providing a welfare system and social safety nets, from food to health and education.

In a socialist system, the state makes all decisions related to production and distribution, in an attempt to distribute national wealth equally among individuals within one society. These definitions fall within the broad concept of socialism, which encompasses hundreds of economic theories and differing definitions, also linked to the state’s direction.

According to the broad definition of socialism, comparing it to the economic conditions of the areas controlled by the Syrian regime today, a question arises after Bashar al-Assad’s talk on socialism: Is Syria capable of this economic model under the current conditions which involve wealth redistribution and increased support?

According to researcher Zaki Mahshi, today’s Syria lives within a “war economy” and does not have the capability to be a socialist economy, which requires support and strong public institutions. Al-Assad’s recent speech included steps to lift support, which is the state’s direction, as the budget barely sustains even employee salaries.

Additionally, the treasury can’t handle the consequences of waste, corruption, theft, and lack of responsibility.

What happens today is resource redistribution favoring “crony capitalism”, and even if privatization were intended, it’s not done gradually nor would public sector institutions be sold because they are losing, according to Mahshi.

Although socialism imposes on the state the obligation to secure citizens through social support networks and plays an important role in daily living fundamentals, from education, health, and food commodities, the Syrian regime’s steps go against this, moving towards withdrawing from providing basic services.

According to Shaabo, the state today is following a policy of distancing itself from the citizens entirely, leaving individuals to fend for themselves, and is incapable even of providing essential infrastructure services like electricity, considering it all just “media propaganda”.

The researcher added that al-Assad’s rhetoric “can be considered worthless on the ground because the reality contradicts his words entirely”, adding that even if al-Assad wanted to transform Syria into socialism, he does not have the ability to fulfill the required duties, and thus the socialist economic model cannot be followed in Syria at the present time.

According to United Nations figures, 15.3 million people in Syria need humanitarian aid, and 85% of families are completely or insufficiently able to meet their basic needs.