Essay from the year 2017 in the subject Politics – Region: Near East, Near Orient, grade: 69/100, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, course: Political Society of the Middle East, language: English, abstract: In mid-March 2011, protests against arbitrary leadership and for democratic institutions took place in Syria’s major cities. The Syrian regime has responded brutally and the dynamics have since been developing into an ongoing armed conflict.
Soon counting its sixth year, the Syrian conflict has been described as sectarian in character. Other scholars have criticized the usage of this term and the concept behind it in this particular context. Overall, this paper will argue that the concept of ‘sectarianism’ does help to explain the current conflict in Syria, while listing and explaining the areas in which the concept helps, as well as stressing the dangers implied when using the term and which analyses have to accompany the usage of the concept, i.e. how the concept does not help to explain the conflict.
For this purpose, a historical perspective will be avoided in order to account for the modernity of the involvement of sectarianism in Syrian politics. The author attempts to put the concept into its modern context. Main time frames and features of the conflict outlined in the following are regarded as critical in the sectarianization of the political sphere, and therefore in the development of the conflict. This includes Hafez al-Assad’s coup to power, and the strategies employed by his regime before and after the uprisings. In particular, the building of a sectarian narrative and how it serves to supply resources to the regime will be described.
Lastly, this paper will outline the involvement of sectarianism in international as well as extremist participation in the conflict. Taking all these factors into account, the main argument of this paper is that non-doctrinal sectarianism is involved in the conflict and needs to be taken into account when attempting an explanation of the conflict. However, it will also argue that sectarianism does not serve to superficially explain the conflict as an outbreak of age-old hatreds between Sunni and Shii Muslims, and that, most importantly, many more fault lines, additional to sect, are involved.
These arguments lead to a conclusion that an explanation of the conflict will involve the concept of ‘sectarianism’, but most importantly needs to go beyond simple binaries and has to include the multi-dimensionality, heterogeneity, and complexity of the political set-up before the uprisings, during the uprisings, as well as during the conflict up to this day.