In the last quarter-century, following the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, a strong belief took hold in the liberal Western world that socialism's star had irretrievably fallen, and capitalism had regained its former glory. However, does liberal capitalism, which claims victory and dominance in today's world, actually offer real solutions to contemporary problems? Or has it, like socialism before it, become an experiment subject to failure, despite its claim of constant renewal?

In June 1942, as fascist forces advanced victoriously across Europe against the liberal democratic states, a confident voice from the East declared that capitalist democracy "has become the nightmare of the worker and the peasant."

At the end of the 1940s, when the “democratic countries” emerged victorious in World War II, the same voice proclaimed with unwavering tone, strength, and confidence that the capitalist-democratic system, proud of its wartime triumphs, offered no social benefit other than inciting class warfare. "It was not a viable system," it argued, "because the economic and social problems it caused have resulted in, and continue to cause—wherever this system remains effective—significant tensions and disturbances." Accordingly, the liberal democracy experienced by civilized societies so far "has not been able to solve the socio-economic challenges that emerged with the advance of the machine era and the rise of specialization and defined roles in work". Therefore, humanity awaits a "new thinking" to achieve true happiness, comfort, and freedom. Antun Sa’adeh, who articulated this perspective, asserted that the most significant and valuable of these "new commodities" will emerge from his homeland, Syria.

In this socio-philosophical exploration, we examine what Sa’adeh terms the “new commodities," referring to a novel form of democracy called "expressive democracy." Sa’adeh asserts that this system offers a solution to the escalating global issues. It promises to eliminate the "convulsions" and "disturbances" associated with liberal democracy while paving the way for a new system that integrates human and material forces in a harmonious interaction, ultimately leading to humanity's happiness and progress.

Emergence of the democratic idea

Greece was long considered the cradle of democracy. However, modern studies based on recent archaeological discoveries in various regions of the Fertile Crescent suggest that the origins of democracy might actually be found in this ancient region. In the first half of the last century, Antun Sa’adeh was the first to highlight the significance of these findings, referring to them as "new democracy" or "expressive democracy." In an interview with the Argentine newspaper "La Razon" on May 21, 1939, Sa’adeh stated: "I highlight that Syria symbolizes democracy, having introduced it to the world many centuries ago, serving as an outstanding example by electing its kings through a general popular referendum."

On May 8, 1940, exactly a year after his previous statement, Sa’adeh reiterated the same idea in a speech to the Syrian community in Santiago, Argentina. He highlighted the emergence of democracy in Syria for the first time in human history. Sa’adeh had first noted this development in 1938 in his book The Rise of Nations, where he stated: “In the Syrian maritime city that stamped the entire Mediterranean area with its culture, the old tribal bond was transformed into a broad social bond. Blind submission to the king passed away at an early stage, and the monarchy lost the divine mark that still characterized the king and the ruling dynasty in the land empire. Thereafter, the king was chosen by election for life.

In this maritime city, social mobility and mixing increased, private interests began to override those of the clan, and people started to feel a sense of unity in the communal life of the city. This new sentiment marked the beginnings of participation rights in the city-state and set the stage for the rise of democracy (pp. 113-114).

In his ground-breaking book, History Begins at Sumer, published two decades after The Rise of Nations, historian and Sumerian scholar Samuel Kramer supports Sa’adeh’s theory that democracy originated not in Greece but in Syria. He highlights that Mesopotamia, within the Fertile Crescent—the cradle of human civilization—had kings who did not wield absolute power; they consulted public assemblies comprising citizens on matters of war and peace.

The resort to “democratic” institutions since the third millennium BC, as highlighted by Kramer, represents a Sumerian (Syrian) achievement that may surprise contemporary thinkers who view democracy as a Western innovation. According to Kramer (1986, pp. 56-60), the cradle of democracy lies in the Near East. The democratic experience first emerged in Eastern Syria (Iraq) and then spread to the Syrian (Canaanite) coast before reaching Carthage, Athens, and Rome through Canaanite immigrants.

A critique of the liberal democratic system

From his vantage point as a thinker and leader of a political project, Sa’adeh closely analyzed the representative democratic systems in Europe and the United States. He concluded that these systems failed to adapt to societal conditions or keep pace with political and economic developments, even in the world's most democratic and advanced nations. Sa’adeh voiced his critique of the parliamentary democratic system in his own country early on, stating in 1938: "The current situation of the Syrian nation will only worsen under parliamentary systems, exacerbating its disintegration and distancing it from true national unity."

Moreover, this system has facilitated feudal lords and capitalists in both the East and West to amass tremendous wealth through the easiest and quickest means. It has also opened the door wide for demagogues and opportunists who exploit the populace with their eloquent speeches, political maneuvers, and quixotic antics. In this framework, political authority—or the state—represents sectarian interests shaped by powerful social, economic, and military forces in society. These are the forces of financial, sectarian, and familial feudalism, as well as foreign interests that infiltrate the system through them. Henry Hamati, a late nationalist thinker, articulated Sa’adeh’s view on the parliamentary system succinctly: “This system is grounded in the principle of representing current conditions rather than improving them, ensuring that political authority merely mirrors society’s existing issues and state. The values of justice and freedom promoted to the people are merely the ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ of this representation. This system functions as a contract between the supreme political authority and the centers of power within society. Through this contract, political authority becomes subordinate to these power centers, ultimately embodying their interests and reinforcing their influence.”

Sa’adeh differentiated between democracy and parliamentarism, highlighting the frequent confusion of the two in political literature, which often equates parliamentary systems with democracy itself. In his view, parliamentarism is merely one form of democracy. Governance based on absolute trust is also democratic, even if it is not parliamentary. Sa’adeh argued that "the people may grant a specific government an absolute mandate, entrusting it with the right to act in the nation's best interest, because they trust it completely. Absolute rule should only be established on the foundation of absolute trust."

That is why Sa’adeh never expected the democratic, representative, parliamentary system to develop national life in Syrian Arab society. This system remains ineffective due to pervasive social fragmentation, economic backwardness, and political decline, all contributing to its paralysis.

Justifications for the expressive democratic system

Sa’adeh didn't just criticize liberalism, its political system and principles, by pointing out its flaws and weaknesses. He also established a new system based on political and legal principles derived from his social doctrine and vision of the state and society. He stated: “We are forging a new path in life that we have chosen for ourselves, relying on our own thinking. This path will shape the progress people derive from us. Current thinking around the world has aged, and humanity is yearning for new ideas to bring happiness, comfort, and freedom. Many of these innovative concepts will originate from Syria, the land of genius and brilliance.” A nationalist thinker once described this system as “the new light” when he wrote in an article published in the Brooklyn newspaper al-Samir in 1940: “Syria can be the beginning of a new light for the world by establishing an ideal system of government that becomes a model for nations to emulate and build upon.”

Based on the societal need for a new governmental system that shields the state from the oppressive forces of capital and production, regulates both material and spiritual production, and keeps up with the rapid advancements in science, knowledge, and technology, the expressive democracy advocated by Sa’adeh is, in his view, the most suitable form of government for our society and similar societies.

The current democracy has deviated from its foundations and descended into chaos, to the point where the people themselves are groaning under the weight of the mechanisms meant to “represent” their general will. They are now awaiting another transformation. This transformation is promised by the Syrian social nationalist philosophy, which aims to return to the basics and genuinely express the general will. The new Syrian social nationalist thought emphasizes "expressing the will of the people." This expression can be by individuals or groups, depending on circumstances. This innovative idea represents the Syrian vision for future humanity and serves as our guiding principle in Syria to align the country with the nation's desires. While all nations aspire for goodness and prosperity, the challenge lies in articulating this collective will effectively. If the general will lacks clear expression and competent leadership, it risks being exploited by representational ambitions and agendas.

What does Sa’adeh mean by the terms representation, expression, and general will as used in the preceding text? Representation in language refers to one thing standing in for another. For example, saying "He represented his people in a state" means he acted on their behalf. It also involves performing a play, where a show is presented on stage to depict reality. A representative is someone who stands in for and acts on behalf of something, like a council that represents the people.

Representation, according to Sa’adeh, is akin to inertia because the actor’s role is to depict reality, not critique, develop, or change it. Therefore, a parliamentary council accurately reflects societal conditions by presenting a realistic picture of society and the political forces within it. Sa’adeh asserts that since their role is confined to representation, there is no room for hope or change in representative councils.

Expressing something (l’expression) involves using signs, words, images, or models to convey meaning. Signs and words denote meanings, while pictures depict objects. Each model represents the original it was derived from. For instance, numbers represent quantities, and algebraic equations describe geometric shapes. Psychological states can be expressed through physical indicators, such as blushing to indicate shyness or agitated movements to signify fear. Expressing one’s inner feelings involves articulating and showing them outwardly. This expression is not about creating an exact artistic replica but about conveying the essence imbued with the artist's emotions, imagination, and experiences.

Expression, as described by Sa’adeh, differs from representation because it embodies creation, innovation, and renewal. Expression can stem from an individual or a group, with an agreed-upon existence. Thus, expression isn't a numerical matter; it isn’t bolstered by large numbers nor weakened by small ones. A clear idea is best expressed through effective leadership.

The term "general will" (la volonté générale) emerged with French philosophers in the eighteenth century. In "The Social Contract" (Le contract social), Rousseau distinguishes between two types of will: the "general will," concerned solely with the common interest, and the "will of all," which pertains to private interest and is merely a sum of partial wills. Therefore, the general will is the legitimate basis for all sovereignty. However, Rousseau argues that its legitimacy hinges on its alignment with the public interest, support from the majority of citizens, and decisions that are not biased towards any individual but focused solely on the common good.

The “expression” of the general will is the characteristic of every individual or group who, through their detachment from private whims, realizes what they can demand of others and what others have the right to demand of them.

The general will, as described in Sa’adeh's writings, is the collective will of the people, the will of a nation united in life, purpose, goals, and destiny. A nation united in spirit, thought, and direction will achieve its freedom and happiness and express its highest aspirations in life.

How does the “new system” Sa’adeh advocates differ from the crumbling “old system”? What benefits can expressive democracy, the proposed new form of government, bring to a country and the world?

1.   The representative democratic system is based on the principle of reflecting societal conditions, making political authorities a direct mirror of society's issues and situations. It is a system where political authorities engage with centers of power based on societal conditions, exchanging benefits and services accordingly.

2.   In this system, free political action is disrupted and the authority of the state, the highest form of political expression, is weakened. Political workers can no longer adapt societal conditions or liberate the state from the pressures exerted by powerful forces in production, capital, and media outlets.

3.   The primary difference between an expressive democratic system and a representative democratic system lies in two fundamental principles, with the first being superior to the second. Sa’adeh emphasized the following point: “The practical Syrian mind was not inclined to indulge in worthless imaginings. Consequently, it confined the public's part to that of spectators in the Greek experience of popular government. To others, it may be a fine idea for every recognized individual member of a city to be an actual "partner" in the administration of the state. However, the idea is nonsensical to me. The Syrian city maintained a clear-cut separation between politics and social association, and this separation enabled the state to keep up its steady advance.” He added: “The practical Syrian mind was not inclined to indulge in worthless imaginings. Consequently, it confined the public's part to that of spectators in the Greek experience of popular government.”

What does Sa’adeh mean by politics and societalism?

By the political factor, Sa’adeh refers to the state and its foremost national institutions, serving as the expression of the collective national will and the political and legal representation of the nation. While a nation represents a purely social reality, the state embodies the political manifestation of human society. The study of nations and their origins pertains to social studies, whereas understanding states and their formation falls under political studies (Sa’adeh, op. cit., p. 135). Societalism, on the other hand, encompasses people within their local communities—small and medium-sized ones in villages, cities, and rural areas. Whereas higher national institutions focus on administration, politics, planning, and organization at a national level, local councils across the entire national geography address issues of local development in towns, cities, and hubs of human activity and production.

Regarding the necessity of separating politics from society, it is essential because the state, responsible for organizing society internally and representing it externally, should not involve every individual in its management. This restriction is due to varying levels of psychological qualifications and intellectual awareness. The governance of the state is both transparent and complex and should be entrusted only to individuals who are mentally, psychologically, ethically, and competently qualified for such roles.

The second key advantage of the expressive system over the representative system lies in establishing the supreme structure of the state based on the "expression" of the general will, rather than the "representation" of individual wills. The elite, who are deemed qualified, form the foundation for articulating the nation's will. From this group emerges the supreme leadership of the nation-state; no one else may attain this leadership position, as it would otherwise compromise national performance and political efficacy. According to thinker Henry Hamati in his referenced article, this system may scientifically and legally be described as an expressive presidential democratic system.

It is a democratic system because its powers arise through elections. It is expressive as it is founded on the expression of the general will, in contrast to the rule of representation typical of representative democracies. In this “presidential” system, executive authority resides entirely with the president, who serves as the head of state. The president holds the central power in a presidential democracy, similar to how Parliament centralizes power in a parliamentary system.

This form of expressive democracy, which Sa’adeh advocates for, aims to establish a new political structure:

First, to secure the state’s future in production, we must embrace advancements in large-scale manufacturing and adapt to global economic competition and market expansions.

Second, to liberate the government from societal constraints, allowing the political leadership to guide and restructure society based on its productive forces, thereby enhancing productivity.
Third, to ensure political stability through a qualified leadership that has evolved beyond societal influences, embodying knowledge, faith, heroism, and virtues.