Enab Baladi – Hassan Ibrahim
In the months following the fall of the Assad regime, discussions on social media have repeatedly emphasized the need for those who glorified the violators and participated in their propaganda to apologize as a reconciliatory step with themselves and with the Syrians in general.
Syrians have awaited brave stances from those loyal to the Assad regime and witnesses to the massacres and serious violations described as war crimes and crimes against humanity, hoping to hear an apology that would help soothe their wounded feelings and acknowledge the extent of the injustice, oppression, and harm they endured, without granting immunity to anyone involved in the Syrian bloodshed.
These calls have been met with a legitimate fear of stigmatization that might affect some of the apologizers or interpret an apology from anyone due to their silence or the actions of individuals from their sect as an acknowledgment with repercussions and risks for the apologizer.
While a specialized viewpoint indicates that an apology provides comfort to the victims’ families and survivors, it does not compensate society for achieving transitional justice.
Some insist on denial
In a recent interview, the former director of the media and political office in the Syrian presidency, Kamel Saqr, refused to apologize to Syrians.
In response to a question about whether he feels Syrians need an apology from him, he stated that he was performing “a political and media role that does not warrant an apology,” as he did not commit an error or offense against the nation or its individuals, as he expressed.
Saqr, who considered himself “just an employee doing his job,” said that those close to the presidency were astonished by the scenes from prisons and the Captagon factories, while even the walls of Syria were groaning under the weight of accumulated oppression and tyranny throughout the rule of both Assads.
Another instance that provoked Syrian feelings was actress Sulaf Fawakherji describing Bashar al-Assad as a “decent person,” “a respectable simple human,” and “to this moment, I see him as decent,” affirming her adherence to this stance “until proven otherwise.”
Regarding the incidences of violations and massacres in Syria, Fawakherji claimed, “Bashar al-Assad did not do that personally,” and regarding his escape to Russia, she said, “I do not know if he fled from himself or was forced to escape,” adding, “I wished he had been martyred.”
Statements from some loyalists to the Assad regime sparked further debates on social media, moving the issue beyond the absence of an apology to their denial of the regime’s past and its stained history and crimes, as well as their involvement in promoting its propaganda, supporting it, and praising its forces, while remaining silent about everything committed during those years.
Another example, similar to the case of Sulaf Fawakherji and Kamel Saqr, a director of the Mada Voluntary team in Homs showcased his team’s “grievances” during the previous regime’s rule, prompting Syrian journalist Abu Bakr al-Saka to express his inability to remain silent before the display, especially since the director’s posts were glorifying al-Assad and his soldiers. He asked him at least to apologize first, during a panel discussion at the cultural center in Homs, central Syria.
The “I Apologize” campaign
Some individuals fear apologizing, even if their wrongdoing was merely silence or not taking a stand on the Syrian revolution or the regime’s oppression, as it opens the door for their condemnation and criticism or may place them in the line of confrontation, especially with the wave of anger in Syrian society and the anticipation of the start of applying transitional justice.
Engineer Bassam Juma, a former political detainee, launched an open campaign for anyone willing to sign it, titled “I Apologize.” It stated: “We are a group of individuals who belong to the Alawite sect by birth and to our Syria by choice, and we extend a heartfelt apology to the Syrian people of all its components, especially the Sunni component.”
The campaign included four points, summarizing the disavowal of the tyrants (the father and the son) and their crimes, and of anyone who contributed to the commission of these crimes. It calls on all members of the Alawite community to not protect those who have stained their hands with blood or contributed to spilling it, and to not obstruct the work of the official security agencies.
Also, an apology is extended to every mother, wife, father, and child for the inability to protect them or prevent the crimes committed against them—killings, destruction, displacement, and detention—and for the silence and fear, and the inability to stop some members of the sect from supporting the criminal regime, according to the campaign.
The campaign urged everyone who sympathized with the defunct regime, under any pretext, to conduct a critical self-review and apologize to the Syrian people, affirming that the apology does not mean that the individuals in the campaign had supported the previous regime; rather, an apology is a moral and historical necessity for building a new, united Syria in which justice and citizenship prevail, embracing all its children, as per the text of the campaign.
Despite the declared goals of the campaign, it faced several criticisms, including that it attributes guilt to identity rather than action, which is an ethical injustice and lacks true justice, and that it reproduces the same problem it seeks to address.
Why don’t they apologize?
Psychologist and physicist Basel Namera told Enab Baladi that individuals who do not offer apologies exhibit clear signs of personality disorder. Anyone with weak personality traits cannot apologize for any mistake they have made, regardless of whether the mistake is big or small or whether it concerns their closest people or strangers.
He added that the resistance to apologizing increases the more distant the relationship between individuals becomes, combined with arrogance or pride, from the perspective of “Why should I apologize to a stranger?” He confirmed that it reflects a type of personal weakness.
Regarding the obstacles that prevent people from apologizing, Karina Schumann, the head of the social psychology program at the University of Pittsburgh, notes that the primary barrier occurs when an individual morally disconnects from their actions, allowing them to think, “Well, there’s nothing that needs correcting here; I’m right.”
Even when a person realizes they have made a mistake and that apologizing could be justified, there is the barrier of not genuinely caring about the other person or the relationship enough to put themselves in a vulnerable position by apologizing or making additional efforts to repair the relationship, according to Schumann.
The second barrier occurs when a person feels that apologizing would threaten them, as well as the belief that the apology would not be beneficial.
Achieving initial comfort
Psychologist and physiotherapist Basel Namera believes that victims and survivors need to hear an apology because it is the first and least that can comfort them after losing their loved ones. He pointed out that they seek and want accountability for the perpetrators, but since achieving transitional justice takes time, they need to hear an apology.
Namera believes that an apology provides temporary initial comfort to the victims and survivors, but if the apology is not followed by accountability for the perpetrators who committed violations and harm against them and their children, the effect of the apology will turn negative and become a psychological burden added to the original trauma they experienced.
On March 13 of this year, the Syrian transitional president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, signed the draft constitutional declaration after receiving it from the committee of experts tasked with drafting it, which included Article “49” that garnered significant interaction from Syrians, as its core essence is based on considering the glorification of the ousted Assad regime and its symbols, as well as denying its crimes or praising, justifying, or downplaying them as crimes punishable by law.
Article “49” of the constitutional declaration contained three paragraphs:
- The first paragraph: Establishing a commission for achieving transitional justice that relies on effective, consultative mechanisms centered on the victims, to determine accountability measures, the right to know the truth, and to provide redress for victims and survivors, in addition to honoring the martyrs.
- The second paragraph: Exempting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, along with all the crimes committed by the ousted regime, from the principle of non-retroactivity of laws.
- The third paragraph: The state criminalizes the glorification of the ousted Assad regime and its symbols; denying its crimes or praising, justifying, or downplaying them is considered a crime punishable by law.
A sincere and authentic public apology paves the way for justice
Noor al-Khatib
Director of the Documentation Department at the Syrian Network for Human Rights
An apology is a symbolic step but necessary, especially if it comes from entities or individuals who were part of the repressive regime or supportive of it. The importance of the apology increases when it is sincere, public, and acknowledges direct responsibility for the violations, rather than being just an attempt to disassociate from the past without bearing its consequences.
However, in the Syrian case, the violations were systematic and included crimes against humanity; an apology cannot be a substitute for justice. For the victims, survivors, and their families, the matter is not just about words, but concerns fundamental rights such as criminal accountability—apologies do not absolve legal responsibility. Those who committed, participated, or supported the crimes must face accountability according to the law and through fair trials that ensure no impunity and redress for harm.
Recognizing the violations requires effective measures to compensate the victims, whether through financial reparations, rehabilitation, restoration of dignity, or guaranteeing the return of usurped rights.
Ultimately, it is important for society to abandon a culture of justification, as a significant part of transitional justice is dismantling the discourse that justified repression for decades. Any individual or collective apology should serve as an entry point for rebuilding societal awareness of human rights and citizenship.
For the apology to have genuine value, it must be clear and explicit, meaning it should include a full acknowledgment of the crimes without justifications or attempts to mitigate responsibility, and must be accompanied by tangible measures such as cooperation with truth commissions, providing documented testimonies, or assisting in uncovering the fate of the forcibly disappeared and bringing those involved to justice.
Additionally, the apology should be part of a comprehensive societal process; it is not enough for a few individuals to apologize, but the apology must be part of a national narrative that acknowledges grievances and restores dignity to victims.
Victims and survivors are not only searching for words, but for guarantees against the recurrence of violations. An apology is a step, but it does not erase the pain, does not bring back the lives lost, does not reveal the fate of the disappeared, and does not repair the damage inflicted on hundreds of thousands of families.
Therefore, the conversation about “reconciliation and what it entails of an apology” cannot precede achieving justice. If victims are asked to overcome their suffering without getting their rights, this will not be real reconciliation but rather a dismissal of their wounds for the sake of political stability alone.
In the end, a real apology is one that paves the way for justice, not one that is used as a substitute for it. In Syria, where violations were widespread and affected all levels of society, any attempt to turn the page without genuine accountability, fundamental reform, and guarantees against recurrence would merely repeat previous cycles of violence and not be a step towards a more just future.