The original idea behind the councils became meaningless. Under the hegemony of weapons and conditional funding, the space for council work closed up. Thus, the possibility of building an alternative, democratic authority from below, which could lead the revolution and speak in its name, was diminished.
Written by Walid Daou
March 6, 2017
Translated by Ghassan Makarem
Source: http://www.al-manshour.org/node/7415
“We are not less that the workers of the Paris Commune… They lasted 70 days and we are still here since a year and a half.” This is how the organic intellectual Omar Aziz described the revolution in Syria. On 17 February 2013, Aziz was martyred in Adra Central Prison.
This text will review the most prominent local councils, where Aziz played a major role in drafting the founding papers.(1) It will also point out the shortcomings of this type of organization, at least in terms of application.
The increase of the Syrian regime’s crackdown on the revolutionary uprising in Syria, in its peaceful phase, coincided with the desertion of many soldiers and the beginning of skirmishes between the Syrian army and what was to become the Free Syrian Army. The need arose for the creation of organizational structures to manage people’s lives, due to the withdrawal of the regime from its simplest duties, already begun with the implementation of neoliberal “reforms”.
While the Local Coordination Committees (LCCs) had been formed as organizational structures to prepare, call for, and document demonstrations, the idea was that the local councils would be an alternative to the regime and its institutions. According to Omar Aziz, the goal behind forming these councils was “assisting people in running their lives independently from state institutions…; the creation of a space for collective expression, which supports solidarity between individuals and elevates their daily actions into political expression…; providing support and assistance for new arrivals and families of prisoners…; providing a space for discussing livelihood issues…; building horizontal links between local councils…; defending lands in the area in the face of government appropriation to the benefit of the wealthy or military and security officers in the state…” This is in addition to the documentation of violations perpetrated by the regime and its thugs (only), as well as providing relief, coordinating with medical committees, and supporting and coordinating educational activities.
However, due to “the absence of electoral practice in the current situation,” as Omar Aziz says, “the local councils will be formed of workers in the social field and those who enjoy public respect and have expertise in [various] areas.” What is noteworthy here is how to measure “public respect” and when will “the current situation” end? Despite the continuity of the “the current situation,” local council elections were held on the municipal level and a general assembly of local councils, which included members of local councils, was formed on the district level. District councils were also formed and elected an executive office and a president. All these councils were attached to the Ministry of Local Administration, Relief, and Refugee Issues in the provisional government.(2)
In fact, however, the work of these councils was limited to municipal affairs, such as various services, accompanied (competing with?) a constellation of NGOs focusing on the same work. Armed groups remained outside the supervision of local councils. At the same time, the Syrian National Council, the Syrian interim government, and the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition forces monopolized the “high political rhetoric.”
Thus, the original idea behind the councils became meaningless. Under the hegemony of weapons and conditional funding, the space for council work closed up. Thus, the possibility of building an alternative, democratic authority from below, which could lead the revolution and speak in its name, was diminished. Although these councils were chosen through elections, democracy cannot be limited to the ballot box or a few minutes of electoral practice. It should also mean that women are allowed to participate as candidates and voters(3). It should also mean being aware of racism and sectarianism. It means the participation of all people in running all their affairs, not merely those related to the right to food, health, and education, and away from the control of warlords from all sides. It also means striving to achieve the aspirations of thousands of Syrian men and women who demonstrated, got arrested, were martyred, or displaced. It should ultimately mean striving towards liberty, dignity, and democracy.
Syrian revolutionaries cannot be blamed for the outcome of the revolution. Omar Aziz did not detain himself and did not commit suicide in jail. From the onset, they faced a ruthless enemy, adept at killing at exploiting mercilessly. But this enemy was not alone. It was supported by a wide group of globally and regionally hegemonic countries and Syrian and non-Syrian armed groups. At the same time, Syrians were plagued with a leadership that was nothing but a pawn for the Gulf States and Turkey and begged for western intervention, until this “outside” intervened in favor of the existing regime, either directly or indirectly.
There is much to be learned from the ongoing experience of the local council, both negative and positive. Struggles by people, or humans, as the martyr and comrade Omar Aziz used to call them, are connected and interlinked. People devise their own ways of steadfastness and confrontation. Our destiny is to confront and struggle on various levels and front and to learn from the mistakes of the past and present. It is not merely to honor the dead, and they are many, but to celebrate life.
Published first in arabic on 6 March, 2017
References:
1) The founding papers for the idea of the local councils in Syria written by martyr Omar Aziz in late 2011 were published by Sami al-Kayyal on his Facebook page on 17 February 2013.
2) In March 2014, the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces published the constituent by-laws of the local councils in Syrian governorates. On the other hand, the Syrian Nonviolence Movement website published an interactive map of all sorts of peaceful protests in Syria, including the distribution of local councils. The map needs updating, due to changes in the situation between areas recovered by the regime (Daraya and Aleppo, for example) or were taken over by ISIS (such as Raqqa, etc.).
3) Razan Ghazzawi, “Women and the Syrian Revolution,” translated by Walid Daou, Al-Manshour website, 3 April 2014.
Thank you for this article and for calling attention to the Local Coordinating Councils. I’ve read about them with great interest, and I think we all have much to learn from their experiences. I am reminded of what developed in Egypt at the time of the Arab Spring. I was in Tahrir Square, and I was told that the occupation there developed a committee to organize the occupation as far as collection of garbage and things like that were concerned. I was also told that a conscious decision was made not to discuss politics in that committee, the reason being that the occupation was composed of so many different elements that they didn’t want to get bogged down in political debate. But political debate is a central part of any revolution! How can it be avoided if the revolution is to succeed?
I’ve always thought that if those committees (and I was told they were organized throughout Egypt along similar lines) had become politicized, they could possibly have grown into something like the Syrian LCC’s.
Regarding the LCC’s: They always sounded to me like something similar to the workers’ councils during the Russian Revolution, except maybe not as fully formed. The question I have is whether they could have started to develop more consciously as a “rival” form of government. If that were so, then it seems to me that it would have had to have been linked to a struggle for an alternative economic system – in other words, socialism. But socialism based on working class democracy, not on bureaucracy. I always will remember this comment from a LCC member in Taftanaz, as reported in a Harper’s Magazine article: “(In) the public-affairs
committee, (of) one of the v i l l a g e ’s re v o l u t i o n a r y
councils (meets). The mustached man slammed his hands on the floor and shouted, “This is a revolution of the poor! The rich will have to accept that.” He turned to me and explained,
“We’ve gone to every house in town and determined what they
need”—he pointed at the ledger—“and compared it with what
donations come in. Everything gets recorded and can be seen by the public.”
One last question: From what I understand, in general there was not a systematic effort to bring in the rank and file soldiers who were deserting Assad’s army. I’ve always wondered if there had been, and if the revolution had more clearly had a program around land for the landless peasants, end neo liberal “reforms”, etc., if that would not have led to a real flood of desertions and allowed the revolutionaries to maintain control of the revolution rather than it passing to a military struggle that seems to have gotten out of their control.
Thanks again for the article.
Dear John
Thank you for your comment 🙂
Yes of course if the local councils either in Syria or in tahrir was politicised the situation would be much better. But some revolutionary avoided to talk in politics or to act in real progressive agenda to preserve the common with the others.
And by this they excluded the women, they permitted to the sectarian discourse to be dominant, and then the councils was coopted by the liberals pro turkey and the ikhwan. In egypt they attack anyone who talk about the rapes and harassments during the first phase of the revolution in 2011, in pretext to preserve the purity of the image of tahrir.
There was no clear strategy to recruit the deserters or to encourage such act in large numbers, maybe the soldiers didn’t find the alternatives in the fsa or they prefer the stability with a fixed salary, or they was afraid from act of revenge against their relatives if they do so…
All of this is behind us, but we must learn from what happened. like we learned from the soviets experience In russia.
Thanks again
Walid, thank you for your reply and the additional information.
Yes, political discussion and debate is an essential part of any working class movement, no less a revolution. And, as you say, this is behind us now – in the past – but we all have to learn from it.