|
After Syria
I was pondering the longe term (20+ years) consequences of the fall of Syria but have failed to come up with sensible predictions.
There are too many interests and nations involved, too many hot spots ready to explode.
But what I find most difficult to predict is the consequence of the systematic de-secularization we can see in the wider area.
Each government that falls seems to get replaced by a more religiously motivated one (see Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Israel, Syria …).
The powers of eschatological (miss-)interpretations of various scriptures is difficult to estimate.
A short view meant for contemplation rather than to assert anything…
There are two main kinds of desecularisation that I observe.
The first is westernisation (or neoliberalism). This is the corporate homogenisation of societies via economic and media normalisation. The effects on the disparate cultural and tribal lines is to turn those into mere members of the wider presentation. I have seen this at work around the world using whatever themes are able to catch. That direction is tied to globalism, or empire, where local differences become window dressing, visible and even accentuated but powerless or somewhat empty of original meaning. In short a ‘life moves on’ approach, where more attractive destinations are set compared to a disassembled past.
I call that desecularisation because it is removed from secular approach. Not quite a religion or ideology, but the adjacent meaning is definitely not secular, or so secular in an individualist way as to render the meaning of secular insignificant.
The other kind is the erasure of regional religious and cultural difference by imposition or by a reduction of choice. As the first example above is blind in that sense for its subjectivity, for example ‘diversity’, and because it dilutes or confronts other traditional norms, stronger forms of moral representation that go beyond questionable subjectivity then take authority in response. The most obvious of these come via religious order, and given the levels of western profanity and hypocrisy those that set a stricter opposition or a higher goal out-do the more lenient. Other examples would include specific ideologies that combat the hegemonic effect resulting from what is described the first paragraph above.
It is a contrarian view mayne, based on the notion that peaceful religion is welcomed in a secular state, but with that state not being governed by religiosity.
Even in theocratic states, in practice most governing authorities are still distinct from the religious authorities. They interact in a symbiotic way, as for example laws and government force will be shaped on religious authority, and religious authority will itself be reacting to the result that government decisions have on society.
The result of all the above however is an equation that is not predictable. The encapsulation of a society within one stronger religious outlook when played off against materialist dependency and similar societal weakness does not necessarily provide a certain answer, though it might proclaims to. Religious authorities also at times become co-opted. Christianity and zionism are one example, where there is nothing Christian about genocidal zionism.
So we can see this in the west very clearly, where the right to follow a particular religious view does not translate into a moral society or governance. We depend literally on the next person being reasonable, and fortunately most people usually are, relatively speaking, at ground level.
Similarly, governance by stricter politicised religion will not necessarily provide a full answer either, because it will encounter the same kind of evolutionary or corrupting forces experienced elsewhere. I have nothing against the attempt either.
In the middle-east oil and easy wealth is often said to have ruined much of the local character, the previous humility and resulting closeness of any society being distracted by newer ways and opportunities. Ever was it so maybe, ancient historians to modern narrators have often shared this observation on the plight of any society.
It could also be said that the overthrow of any existing order was customarily accompanied by accusations of greed, carelessness, deviance, lack of moral, inequality and so on.
In short weaknesses. How else would a competing force describe the other however, and then being justified by successor status ?
So we are left with a confused paradigm of evolution that repeats. The difference now however is that material wealth abounds like never before, while at the same time the ability to manage or direct the resulting reality has gone to the hands of a fewer few holding more extreme means, confronted with populations that have access to more knowledge and information than they know how to process.
The leaders might compete with each other just to prove themselves to those that they lead, and they might compete against those they lead just to maintain authority.
A secular approach tends to allow a more cautious evolution where respect for others, and between collectives, acts as a buffer to such monopoly or extremes.
Centralisation and greater dictate on the other hand allows for mobilisation of resources to greater apparent effect.
The phrase ‘Those who take the credit also take the blame’ comes to mind, and so unless it all merges into a ruthless global dictatorship then those that lead are mostly framed from the start, given one persons success often translates into another’s failure. It seems a price that they do not mind paying.
Discontent within a nation takes time to become endemic, then surfaces at times of stress. Discontent of outside opponents is often reflected as a longstanding hostility waiting for opportunity of vengeance.
No wonder some countries choose to close out the rest, and no wonder we end up with politicians who do not even pretend to try, as in europe or usa.
No answer really, but I expect they will be playing the above ‘game’ in one form or another for centuries to come, as they have done for centuries past.
Our own worlds that we feel are what stands or has meaning, were undoubtedly built along similar lines before our time.
At least we have music…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Ac08yr_Z4
Posted by: Ornot | Dec 11 2024 2:07 utc | 224
What did you (we…) expect ?
Syria had become a crystal glass.
Rigid. Fragile.
Surrounded by stone-throwers for 20 years.
Bombed massively for 10 years.
Emptied by the economic aggression of sanctions and occupation,
In French, we have a saying: “ventre affamé n’a pas d’oreilles”.
Thanks @ Cabe | Dec 11 2024 4:01 utc | 245 for this link
Here is a reasonable article by a Syrian Christian about the overthrow: https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/10/understanding-the-rebellion-in-syria/ . While the author admits prognosticating about Syria’s future now would be hazardous, he doesn’t see the events as either the end of the world or as an utter defeat for anybody in particular (the Asad family excepted). It certainly is a big change and is likely to have malign consequences, but not so immediate or extreme as some seem to think.
Nevertheless, poor Syria and poor Syrians!
One can only understand complexity by being the sponge that has absorbed the reality of the local world. Damascus, Baghdad, Al-Quds ( & Jerusalem) have changed my life. And what follows is not “just an opinion” ”
“Religion” is an umbrella word
“Religion” is only human made law.
Laws are merely the standardization of the “habits and customs” that hold together the elementary particles of a society, from the individual to the Nation and the Empire.
For those in doubt, a visit to the Louvre and an understanding of the significance of Hammurabi’s stele is a must (Wikipedia as a first approach is acceptable
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_de_Hammurabi )
The return to “religion” or the return to the previously stable social structure?
In this respect, the major difference between “Sunnism” and “Shiism” is (broadly speaking) that the former is the expression of Arab social structures (TRIBU). The latter is crystallized in the age-old Persian state structure (NATION).
“Religion” is just a varnish.
The term varnish generally refers to a transparent, dry, permanent and shiny substance, deposited in a liquid state and which, by solidifying by evaporation, constitutes a protective layer on the surface of the object (the subjective) where it is extended and which protects it from atmospheric or mechanical attacks (wear).
Just as Zionism-Christianism are merely the “american” varnish ON an expansionist COLONIALISM bloody mess erected as a “nation”. (Andreï Martianiov Last Nail in the coffin here: https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2024/12/american-bible-thumpers.html?m=1 )
Pan-Arabism was championed by heads of state such as Nasser, Boumédiene, Saddam Hussein, Hafez el-Assad, Yasser Arafat, Habib Bourguiba, Abdelkrim el-Khattabi and, in its early days, Muammar Gaddafi.
Their heirs settled for a return to simple tribal control, more or less extended to the territory granted by the colonial powers.
Nothing to do with Faith. Could be some weaponised Credo. 2nd french saying “chacun pour soi et Dieu pour tous”
Bashar al-Assad was no more than a landmark in a vanished world, an inlier of Pan-arabism protected by Russia
An inlier is an area of older rocks surrounded by younger rocks. Inliers are typically formed by the erosion of overlying younger rocks to reveal a limited exposure of the older underlying rocks.
and as such incredibly isolated and fragile. Can’t be protected from erosion when surrounded and digged in by so many Miners.
His filial respect for his father’s commitments (again, totally traditional and Arab) made him both rigidly solid and fragile
Posted by: La Bastille | Dec 11 2024 9:09 utc | 293
|
