by Salim Mujais
To guard against politicized definitions, Saadeh undertakes an examination of the various theories of nationalism.25 This critical analysis is important to review as the SSNP has frequently been accused of espousing theories it clearly refutes. He addresses racial theories stating, “The fact is that no modern nation has a single racial or ethnic origin… if we examine the history of the formation of the Italian nation, the only constant is the land of Italy whereas multiple ethnic origins can be discerned.”26 Just like Italy has mixed ethnic origins (Etruscans, Romans, Lombards, Ligurians etc.), so does France (Gauls, Latins, Iberians, Franks, Alamans and Norsemen) and England (Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse and Normans). Saadeh quotes Tennyson declaiming: “Saxon and Norman and Dane are we.”27 So is Germany despite all the rhetoric on Aryan blood. In debunking racial theories, Saadeh was aware of their great influence and emotional appeal because of their associations with select status and arrogant pride. “People are enamored with the concept of “race” and consider it the source of all good deeds and virtues, provided it is pure. Thus, we find individuals and groups that cling to the purity of their race and each claim theirs to be the best and most noble breed… and one of the strangest beliefs advanced by some is that humans are predisposed to yearn for a racial belief and that it is futile to attempt to negate such a natural tendency.”28 He surveys the spread of such racial theories in France and how it has been usurped to serve in the cause of conflict with Germany and in the latter as a prop for aristocratic rule. He asserts that racist theories cannot be supported by objective science and are susceptible to manipulations to serve the goals of the political elites that formulate them.
Linguistic theories of nationhood are clearly relevant to the definition of Syrian nationhood in the face of Pan-Arab considerations. Such theories are witnessing a revival in Europe at the hands of some nationalist theorist such as in the definition of Croatian and Catalan nationalisms, German expansionism, and others. The importance of language is magnified when it is considered in a national context as a carrier of a cultural heritage. A single nation benefits from a single language that carries its culture, ideals, and spirit, but the language need not be unique to that nation for the value of a language is not its technical form which can be common among multiple nations, but what it carries of the nation’s cultural heritage. The unity of language does not define a nation, but is useful for the cohesion of a nation. Saadeh cites how Ireland is not defined by the English language that was imposed on it, yet it retained its nationhood.29 When language is invoked as a basis for nationhood, it is frequently to validate other motives. The use of language in the Pan-Arab national formulation is as a front for minimalist Pan-Islamism.
Religion based concepts of the nation have always existed within some religions. In Islam, the community of believers is referred to as “ummah,” literally “nation.” The inherent incompatibility between religion and nationalism is obvious. The universalism of religion is contrary to the formation of nations.30 There are instances, however, where religion becomes a rallying cry for nationalism such as in the religious wars in Europe that had the goal of making the state’s territory congruous with the religious creed of rulers, or the role of Catholicism in Irish nationalism, Shi’ism in Iranian nationalism, Lutherism in German nationalism, etc. Saadeh, however, considered the permanence of religious influence in the definition of the nation and in the mobilization of national effort as a nefarious element because of the heterogeneity of the religious composition in Syria and on philosophical grounds since he considered the rigidity of religion as an obstacle to progress. We will return to the question of religion and nationality below during the discussion of the reform principles of the SSNP.
While recognizing that the political elites in a nation can politicize the concept of nationhood and manipulate it, Saadeh does not push this critique of this phenomenon to the point of considering nations as constructed imaginary communities. For Saadeh, nations are objectively differentiated realities with a collective identity and a common national interest. This reality underlies the observation that nationalism is the most universal phenomenon in contemporary history. On the basis of this concept of the nation as a group of human beings living a life of unified interests, unified destiny, in a particular geography, and distinguishable from other groups, Saadeh proceeds to define the nationalism that the SSNP espouses.
Saadeh considered national consciousness as the greatest social phenomenon of the time requiring the individual to add to his sense of “self” a sense of the character of his nation, the latter eliciting in him a heightened degree of altruism and devotion.31 The emergence of nationalism had a transformative effect on political theory and institutions, and governed the development of democracy. Indeed, Saadeh links the emergence of nationalism with the strengthening of democratic ideals.32 Taking the emergence of nationalism in Western Europe as a model, he argues that nationalism did not halt its march with the abolition of feudalism and strengthening of royalty, but went beyond it to the assertion that the people are the source of sovereignty, and that the state is for the people and not the converse. Democracy is thus an essential component of nationalism and a manifestation of the common will. The state was transformed from a tool of oppression and authoritarian rule, to an expression of self-rule by the people.
At the end of his book, Saadeh describes nationalism thusly: “Nationalism is the awakening of the nation and its consciousness of the unity of its life, of its personality and characteristics, and of its destiny. It is the nation’s bond. It may sometimes be confused with patriotism, which is the love of the homeland, because patriotism a component of nationalism, and because the homeland is the most powerful factor in the emergence of the nation and its most important element. It is a deep, living conscience that appreciates the common good, fostering love of the homeland and internal cooperation to avert the dangers that may beset the nation… nurturing the feeling of the unity of interests, the sustenance of life and its betterment by being loyal to this common life… Nationalism is the spirit or feeling emanating from the nation, from the unity of life in the course of time. Nationalism is not an irrational fanaticism born from primitive or religious causes. It is not a kind of totemic or a racial delusion, but a genuine feeling, an honest emotion and determined caring for the common life. Its elements spring from the bonds of social life… In its moments of weakness, it may be corrupted and ruled by political propaganda and beliefs, but its true nature will awaken in the silence of the night, in the hours of contemplation and in the remembrance of the homeland.”33
Saadeh’s view that nationalism is the awakening of nations to self-consciousness is evidently contrary to the generalized assertions of some contemporary theorists that nationalism always invents nations where they do not exist. Saadeh recognized that some nationalisms are indeed linked to imagined and invented nations, to wit his critique of Lebanese nationalism and Pan-Arab nationalism. He maintained, however, that nations are true social entities and not merely ideological constructs as some theorists would claim.
NATIONAL IDENTITY AND SOVEREIGNTY
While the principles of Syrian nationalism were formulated in 1932, they are nevertheless informed by the conclusions expressed in Nushu’ al-Umam. Indeed, the central document that contains the basic and reform principles of the SSNP and the elaboration of their implications was originally written by Saadeh in 1936 after he completed the writing of Nushu’ al-Umam.
The principles of the SSNP are classified into two broad categories: the basic principles of which there are eight and the five reform principles. The eight basic principles of the SSNP embody the doctrine of Syrian nationalism. They proceed in a logical order from a declaration of the existence and nature of the Syrian nation (first principle), to an identification of the character of its cause (second and third principles), to a clarification of its genesis (the fourth principle) and its homeland (fifth principle). The basis of national unity (sixth principle), the sources of national c
haracter and consciousness (seventh principle), and the guiding principles of national militancy (eighth principle) are then defined.
The SSNP considered that the most urgent issue was the determination of national identity, which is the only viable basis of national consciousness and the starting point of national revival. Religious and ethnic tendencies had led to the proliferation of “invented identities.” Christian separatists had advocated for a Lebanese identity harking to Phoenician roots. Muslim pan-Arab theorists dreamed of a more subdued Islamic entity limited to Arab-speakers. Minorities reeling from past oppression looked for relief in their own states. The confusion was further aggravated by the proto-states created by colonial intervention. The SSNP posits that all these disparate identities are the product of historical grievances, religious fanaticism, and interests of corrupt political elites in collusion with colonial designs. The only true distinct national entity is embodied in the formulation of a Syrian nationhood, hence the First Basic Principle stating: Syria is for the Syrians and the Syrians are a complete nation. In the explanation of this principle, Saadeh states: “Thus, the assertion that the Syrians constitute a nation complete in itself is a fundamental doctrine, which should put an end to ambiguity and place the national effort on the basis of clarity without which no national revival in Syria is possible. The realization of the complete nationhood of the Syrians and the active consciousness of this nationhood are two essential prerequisites for the vindication of the principle of national sovereignty. For, were the Syrians not a complete nation having right to sovereignty and to the establishment of an independent state, Syria would not be for the Syrians in the full sense, but might fall an easy prey to the intrigues of some other sovereign power pursuing interests conflicting with, or that might conflict with, the interests of the Syrian people.” 34 In this principle lies the legal basis of national sovereignty. Nationhood is the legitimating principle in the modern international system. In essence, this principle announces the illegitimacy in the eyes of the SSNP of all international treaties, alliances or schemes that may affect the Syrian homeland in a fashion contrary to the real interests and wishes of the Syrian nation. “The Syrians are a nation upon whom alone devolves the right to own, dispose of, and make decisions concerning every inch of Syrian territory. The homeland belongs to the nation as a whole and no one, not even individual Syrian citizens, may dispose of any part of its territory in such a way as to destroy or endanger the integrity of the country, which integrity is a necessary condition for preserving the unity of the Syrian nation.”
This principle is a resounding refusal of the right of Britain to issue the Balfour declaration promising to facilitate the settlement of Zionists in southern Syria (Palestine) and the creation of a Jewish homeland, and a rejection of the presumed rights of Jews to such a homeland in southern Syria.35 This principle further asserts the permanence of national sovereignty in the face of the temporary political arrangements and separate states that arose in Syria under the influence of foreign colonial powers and separatist movements. It affirms the primacy of the integrity of the nation and its homeland over the temporary political forms that may arise during periods of national disintegration and foreign occupation. Since sovereignty over the homeland is national, no individuals, or groups within Syria have the right to forfeit or to allow the permanent loss of sovereignty over any part of the Syrian homeland.
A distinctive aspect of this principle is the necessary interconnection of its two clauses. A requisite that Syria the homeland belong to the Syrians is that the latter form a complete nation. This interdependence between the nation and the homeland is a primary axiom of Syrian Nationalism. The integrity of the Syrian nation is the safeguard of the integrity of the Syrian homeland and vice versa. Thus, all attempts leading to a loss of Syrian national integrity threaten the loss of homeland. Saadeh often stressed that national disintegration was a main reason for the loss of the district of Alexandretta in the north, and Palestine in the south. Separatism is thus a danger to the integrity of the homeland. Conversely, the Syrian nation cannot prosper when valuable portions of the homeland are lost. The integrity of the homeland is vital to the survival and prosperity of the nation.
In its apparent simple structure, this principle is the most valuable guide to the understanding of Syrian nationalism and to the elucidation of the plan for national struggle. It is a call to the constituency of the Party to fight separatism, to resist factional tendencies, to reject colonialism, and to re-establish Syrian possession of the entire homeland. Based on this principle, the SSNP does not recognize the right of Zionists to establish a belligerent religious state in the southern part of Syria (Palestine) with clear intentions of engulfing larger sections of the Syrian homeland. Furthermore, the SSNP does not abide by any international agreements that would deprive the Syrians of their national integrity or the integrity of their homeland. Finally, the independence of Syria in deciding its national interests and the course of its life in its homeland is an immutable right that the SSNP does not allow to be jeopardized or abrogated.
The question of sovereignty is further affirmed in the Second Basic Principle: The Syrian cause is an integral national cause completely distinct from any other cause. Saadeh explained: “This principle signifies that all the legal and political questions that relate to any portion of Syrian territory, or to any Syrian group, are part of one indivisible cause distinct from, and unmixed with, any other external matter which may nullify the conception of the unity of Syrian interests and of the Syrian will. This principle follows from and is complementary to the first principle. Since Syria is for the Syrians and the Syrians are a complete nation endowed with the right to sovereignty, it follows that this nation’s cause, that is its life and destiny, belongs to her alone and is independent from any other cause that involves interests other than those of the Syrian people. This principle reserves to the Syrians alone the right to expound their own cause and to be their sole representatives, determine their own interests and shape their own destiny. It renders theirs an all-inclusive and indivisible cause.
The cause célèbre for this principle is the long-held attitude rampant among Syrians before the advent of the SSNP that the destiny of Syria is inextricably linked to the destiny and will of the foreign colonial power in control. While under Ottoman rule, many Syrian thinkers thought of the destiny of Syria as part of the Ottoman Empire and fought for Ottoman nationalism. Even the early resistance to Jewish settlements in southern Syria was formulated in the context of loyalty to the Ottoman state.36 Subsequently, the separatist Christian leaders in Lebanon sought to link the destiny of Lebanon to France.37 By proclaiming the integral and independent framework for the Syrian national cause, Saadeh was establishing the guiding principle for the struggle of the Party. The SSNP does not view the life and destiny of Syria as fundamentally dependent on any non-Syrian issues and thus the pursuit of the interests of Syria by the Party is guided solely by those principles independent of extraneous causes or struggles.
Another example to clarify the significance of this principle is the position of the Syrian Communist Party vis-à-vis the partition of Palestine. The Communist Party accepted the partition scheme in concordance with the position of Stalinist Russia, decried any efforts for the liberation of Palestine and called for the unity of Jewish and Palestinian workers against Arab bourgeoisie, at a time when Palestine was ethnically cleansed of Palestinian workers, peasants and bourgeoisie!
This principle also establishes the unifying direction in tackling the issues of the life and destiny of the nation. Thus, the occupation of southern Syria by Zionists is not a ‘Palestinian issue’ or a separate ‘Palestinian cause,’ but part of the Syrian cause. By establishing the wider appurtenance of the Palestinian issue, Saadeh commits the entire Syrian nation to the struggle for the return of Palestine to full Syrian sovereignty. It is clear that abandonment of this principle has been largely responsible for the defeat of the efforts of Palestinians in keeping and
recuperating southern Syria. It is only with a unified Syrian effort that southern Syria can be liberated. The assumption by the entire Syrian nation of the responsibility for issues affecting some of its regions assures vigilance in all national matters. The exemplification of this principle lies in the thousands of SSNP members whose struggle, sacrifices and martyrdom has transcended regional affiliations.
The emphasis on the national framework for the Syrian cause and its integral character establishes a unity of effort in the struggle for achieving Syrian goals. It is a guardian against regionalism, sectarianism and individualism in attending to issues related to the life and destiny of the nation. In accordance with this principle, the SSNP “does not recognize the right of any non-Syrian person or organization to speak on behalf of Syria and its interests either in internal or international matters. The Party does not recognize the right of anybody to make the interests of Syria contingent on the interests of other nations.”
SYRIA DEFINED
The definition of the Syrian nation and homeland expounded in the SSNP principles is clearly different from the various definitions of Syria common in historical and literary works in Syria and abroad. While historical research unceasingly uncovers evidence of unifying tendencies in the civilization of the Fertile Crescent. “A large number of historians have confined their definition of Syria to Byzantine or late Hellenistic Syria, whose boundaries extended from the Taurus range and the Euphrates to the Suez thus excluding the Assyrians and Chaldeans from Syrian History. Other historians have further confined this definition to the region between Cilicia and Palestine, thus leaving out Palestine.” The Third, Fourth and Fifth basis principles of the SSNP are concerned with this definition. The Third Basic Principle: The Syrian cause is the cause of the Syrian nation and the Syrian homeland, lays the framework derived from the concept of nation defined above. “This principle … emphasizes the indissoluble bond between the nation and its territory. Nations arise in distinct territories that sustain their lives and national character. The concept of the unity of the nation and its homeland … frees the concept of nationhood from such historical, racial or religious misconceptions as are contrary to the nature of the nation and its vital interest.” Hence, the definition of the Syrian nation in the fourth basic principle is a direct application of the nation concept formulated by Saadeh. In general, the doctrine states that nations formed because the geographical environment coupled with historical-economic and sociological events led to the formations of distinct human societies with distinct life cycles, character and history.
