The Power of the Leader

Many have asked and continue to ask “Why should the [party's] leader have all this unlimited power?” Obviously, 99% of these inquisitors are ignorant members of the public who lack a sound theoretical and practical awareness of political and legal conditions and their developments and of the general state of social and psychological affairs. They have not acquired a sufficient knowledge of history, the evolution of the state, and conflict over sovereignty in the state.

In addition, these inquisitors have never held a single administrative post in their lifetime or joined an army corps where they can learn the virtues of order, how to confront dangers, and how to carry out duties and deal with risky situations. They have never received political education of any kind, not even the bare minimum of simple clerical training. Among them, you would find the fraudulent traders and law-breakers, the transgressors of ethics and social decency, and the anarchists who are always ready to rebel against something they do not like or that is not dictated by their whims and inclinations.

In addition, most of the inquisitors of the aforementioned question are those whose minds have rusted because they have been over-neglected. They hardly strain their minds to study a subject or to address an issue. Therefore, all they do is pick up some of the simple ideas going around without thinking or racking their brains. If you happen to come across them after they have picked up some new expressions, take cover. They will use the expressions to launch into you without pity or mercy. Some of them are conceitedly ignorant and will not admit to their ignorance or accept that anyone could be better than they are.

They have picked up the question “Why should the [party's] leader have all this unlimited power?” from the press of “Democratic propaganda” against Hitler and Mussolini. It is not from them. The fact that they have restricted themselves to it without any analysis of a particular sociopolitical condition is conclusive evidence that they are repeating it almost mechanically without any rational thinking or reflection, and proof that they have never studied political history and the science of constitutional rights. It also reveals their complete ignorance of the principle of cause and effect and the principle of capacities and needs.

The problem gets even worse if the inquisitor happens to have read or heard something about the despots of the Dark Ages or other things about the French Revolution. In that case, he/she does not only ask the condescending question [“Why should the [party's] leader have all this unlimited power?”] but launches into a discourse into why authoritarianism is inappropriate and why it is important to maintain matters on the basis of popular representation to protect the rights of the people and to ward off the tyranny of individuals.

From this point, we want to address the critical issue at hand. As a starting point, we will begin with the following question: “What are the causes of the French Revolution and the reasons for vesting legislative power in a House of Representatives elected by the public?” The answer is “The tyranny of the kings which brought the people no benefit.”

Let us move to another question: “Would the French people have revolted if their kings had exercised they autocratic rule more responsibly and for the general benefit of the people?” The general answer would be “No.”

The answer that some constitutional philosophers might give is this: a violent struggle between the people and the king may occur for a reason other than despotism. That reason is the principle of monarchical hereditary, which may impose on the people rulers whom they do not want.

The two foregoing questions and answers reveal there are two types of reasons why a people may rise up against authoritarian rule: (a) a direct reason associated with the exercise of despotism without any regard to the welfare of the people (a powerful and compelling reason), and (b) an indirect reason associated with succession and the imposition of absolute authority without checking with the subjects first.

No other justifications for rising up against rulers exist with the exception of the anarchic movements that rebel against every system and authority. Reason and experience attest to the fact that people do not revolt against a tyrant who is working for his own good. Instead, they admire and praise him and pray that he may live longer. Indeed, history is replete with examples of people exalting their rulers and kings.

Let us take the French Revolution as the baseline of our study. What is the overall image that emerges from it? An image of a people who rose up to reform their corrupt government. The least that can be said about this image is that it is a realistic depiction of what actually happened.

If we weigh Syria's situation against this image, what is the result? An inverse image that is the direct opposite of the French image. In Syria, we no longer have hereditary monarchs who claim to derive their authority from God to rule as they please and to exercise absolute power without providing benefits to the people. Therefore, the corruption in the system of governance in our country derives from corruption in the people. The parliamentarians in Lebanon and the Sham [the Syrian Republic] who sell the interests of the people at private auctions are elected by the people. However, the people are in a state of rampant corruption. They are woefully ignorant of their rights and interests and do not have any feeling for their unity or for the unity of their country’s personality. In Syria, corrupt clergymen have turned religious sects into political parties and members of the public have acquiesced to religious discrimination and have caved in to corrupt practices. They sell their votes on the open market, unaware that what they are selling are their sovereign rights. In Syria, the individual has learned not to worry about the harm that may be inflicted on the people, but to care only about their own individual gains. In Syria, ethics have turned into vices and morals have degenerated. Corruption is embedded in the people and the people whose spirit is corrupted need rehabilitation. This rehabilitation can only be done from within. It must start from an individual who has broken free from the corruption of the group and prevailed over its whims. This individual is the one who requires the protection of the State from the corruption of the people, not the people.

This individual reformer should be granted the protection of absolute power so he can:

•     strike with an iron fist against the mongers of national rights and public interests;

•     put an end to those who abuse their powers and exploit the system;

•     tame the deriders of the nation's dignity and rights;

•     prevent chaos;

•     edify, train, and establish new and proper institutions to shoulder the demands of the new life; and

•     lay down a new code of conduct that puts the virtues of freedom, duty, order, and power in the place of chaos, personal desires, decadent customs and predilections, fragmentation, and passivity.

If we studied the history of the Syrian National Party more closely and scrutinized the trials and tribulations it went through, we would realize that the unlimited power vested in its leader is the only buffer for the safety of the party, which represents the revival of the Syrian Nation. Had it not been for this power, the party would probably have disintegrated, even if the party's ideology had remained. It would have disintegrated because of the intrigues that individuals engaged in. These individuals brought the maladies of a decadent psychology into the party and tried to turn the party into an arena for the competition of personal interests and whims. The credit for the thwarting of these intrigues is due to the ability of the party's leader and his unlimited power. This bolstered the faith and confidence of the entire party in him, rather than undermining it. Those who object to the bestowment of this unlimited power on the party's leader are mostly persons who do not like to lock themselves into an administrative position within a hierarchy that has the power to hold them accountable for their actions. They do not like to be held responsible for anything or to be less important than anyone else is. They do not like to take orders from other people or to be answerable to superiors. Therefore, they would rather prefer that issues still be referred to ordinary people despite the chronic ignorance and corruptness they display. As a result, responsibilities are squandered, duty is impaired, order is paralyzed, and the interests of the nation are replaced by psychological and material personal interests.

Any form of authoritarianism that does not bring benefit to the people should be fought firmly and vigorously. This includes the individual absolutism of those who keep asking condescendingly “Why should the [party's] leader have all this unlimited power?” The only way to get rid of the despotism of those who fan corruption in the people is to give the reformer all the power he needs to carry out his work.

We must understand fully that the image we are dealing with in Syria is not that of a people furious at rulers or at a power base and striving to reform the corruption of their power-holders. Rather, it is an image of a people whose every stratum is deeply penetrated by corruption and is in a state of illness and paralysis. It is an image of an individual who has stepped back from it all and devoted himself to combating the corruption in his society and reforming the conditions of the people. Any hindrance to the power of this reformer could send us back in time, cause serious cracks, and ultimately destroy everything we have built.