Syrian Conflict through Constructivism Theory
According to the story of Syria, the Arab spring started on 15th march 2011, when small, and peaceful demonstrations were carried out in the streets of Damascus. The demonstrations were calling for democratic revolution, and political freedom within the state. Constructivism is a global relations theory that pursues to bring to knowledge the importance of communities’ actions, and deduce its significance. According to constructivism, any actor is entitled to acquire an agency in global relations such as organizations, and personalities. Constructivism differs from realism and liberalism whereby instead of making assumptions that countries are rational, constructivism accepts that performers’ interests and rationality are generally built, and constitutes identity (Guzzini & Leander, 2005). Constructivism is the best theory for bringing to knowledge the series of events that took place in Syria since it makes us understand how actors’ interests, social identities, , and preferences are informally built and are capable of causing conflict.
Social identity means, a socially built set of meanings that one can attribute to oneself. Social identity is created through the political choices, actors’ interactions, interpretations, assumptions, and collective meanings and serves the main role in the Syrian internal conflict. A state is socially built, can also be deconstructed, and altered when all identities, assumptions, and interests have been recognized (Guzzini & Leander, 2005). Rules, laws, norms, and institutions are some of the interests entrenched in the system of global relations and are vital for ordaining change.
Different characteristics of the Syrian conflicts can be explained in relation to norms, social concepts, opinions, and identities (Guzzini & Leander, 2005). Guzzini (2005) believes that the most significant element of constructivism is the stress it places upon identity, and other non-material factors like norms, ideas, and values in explaining the roots of the interest of the state. Also, why a state may decide to choose a certain conduct over another in the global system .Constructivism theory is an important aspect in understanding the events in Syrian conflicts since it brings out how social personalities, and the performers’ interest built can kindle the conflict.
Through constructivism theory, any performer is entitled in having an agency in any universal relations like, organizations, states, and individuals (Guzzini & Leander, 2005). Constructivist is certain that actors’ interests’ rationality are socially created. Constructivist is constitutive by its uniqueness, unlike realism, which natures them for endurance of the nation, and liberalism is derived from collaboration and interdependence. War is mostly inflicted by different interest such as laws, rules, and institutions. People differ and view a certain situation differently due to different diversion of identities, which may end up causing conflicts between different groups of people when those opinions appear mutually exclusive (Guzzini & Leander, 2005).. Different groups are motivated differently in the conflict, and many social personalities are present which are truly irreconcilable.
Through constructivism, we are able to distinguish the two main assumptions of Liberalism and realism, which creates room for a better understanding of the social structures of Syria. Firstly, the organizations and structures only hinder behavior of the government with fixed interests, and secondly, the identity of the government is professed only through physical abilities. Lessening this assumptions allows social structures to be well-defined by more than just one behavioral restrictions.
The existence of many different social personalities in Syria, each with a different belief in the Syrian conflict are not compatible hence may lead to societal wars. For example, al-Alssad government does not represent the public such that it oppresses all identities except the Shia people. The al-Alssad government brings out a cultural conflict where different groups have different interest. Through Constructivism, norms are different understanding that motivates actors hence affecting identity and interest. A conflict between the Sunni and the Shia, which are branches of Islamic religion contributed a lot to the Syrian war. Conflict between the Sunni and Shia was ignited by religious institutions in Syria (Gause, 1999). Conflict begun when Shia came into power, immediately Sunni begun protesting, and demonstrating. Sunni’s demonstrations were viewed by the government as terroristic. From the conflict between Sunni and Shia, social structures like culture, and norms have immensely affected each party differently, and their interests. Sunni constituted mainly seventy five percent of the whole population, while the government belonged to Shia.
Protests by the Arabs against the Tunisia government ignited the Syrian people to protest against the government of al-Assad. The people of Syria were pushing Assad to resign, and allow evolution of government to happen (Gause, 1999). There was a wave of social movement among the Arab community in general, which enlightened the Syrians that they would have a government of their choice. Since the world was evolving, Syrians believed they were not entitled to historical notions of power and social organizations. The Syrians’ saw the possibilities of constructing their own government, social organizations, and constructing their own ideas on how to improve the economy of their country that eventually contributed to war in their country.
Assad was confronted with evolving structures where people were enlightened with new ideas. Assad later came up with a new identity where he identified himself as a legitimate leader. Assad was determined to stay in power although a group of disobedient terrorist who were against his ruling (Gause, 1999). Assad was not able to show his new identity, he continued with his old ways of harsh ruling, and oppressing brutally those who opposed his government. Assad recognized the demonstrators as terrorist who were against prosperity terming them a threat to the national security. The Syrian leadership was against demonstrations in order maintain security and survival of the government. Syria therefore terms this disputes as internal conflicts that have been taking place between the government forces and terrorists. Assad seeks to protect the country from being attacked by terrorists hence naming the conflict as terrorists vs. state fight.
Differences occurred between the international communities in response to the Syrian internal wars. Different countries had different views regarding the conflict in Syria. For example, most of the western countries like the United States opposed the Syrian government (Gause, 1999). Americans were advocating for a democratic government, and were against dictatorship in Syria. Americans believed that many people had lost their lives during the reign of Assad due to brutal punishment, and ruthless killings.
Westerwelle, a German foreign minister was quoted saying, “this violence must come to a stop with immediate effect. (Gause, 1999) The Syrian government must ensure that the basic human, and civil rights, observe the essence of the rule of law.” The United States, and most of the western countries believed that, in order to end conflict, al-Assad had to resign from being the leader of Syria to pave way for a democratic government.
The United States, and the western countries defined themselves as democratic countries, while the Syrian government as a dictatorial government (Malmvig, 2014). United States and its associates believed that dictatorship in Syria was soon going to end. The Americans believed that immediate intervention was needed in order to stop terrorist explosion in the Arabian countries. The United States and its associates were mainly guided by democracy, which they understood considered a remedy against violence and other prohibited establishments.
As the Americans considered the government of Assad as a dictatorship government, the Russians were viewing it as a moderate government against Islamic terrorists. The Russians warned the Syria government of the terrorists who were determined to come into power because of the Arabic revolution (Gause, 1999). The Russians believed that they had been guided by the moderate government to fight and defeat religious terrorists. Russia alleged that the Islamic regulations are a danger to their state safety towards Syria, mainly because of the strong association amid Syria and Russia. Generally, the fall of the Syrian government led to internal conflicts according to the Russian government, and creates a room for the Islamic extremists to strengthen themselves.
The collapse of the Syrian government was a blow to the Russian government because Russians interest in Syria economically, and particularly weapon trade were diminished. Falling of the Syrian government meant, Syria Islamic extremists would damage Russians interests in terms of both economy and security. However, China was against both the Americans, and the Russians, and the entire western fraternity (Malmvig, 2014). According to the Chinese, the future of the Syrians should be independent, and decided by the Syria people without external interference. Therefore, the Chinese took the matter in the context of intervention versus sovereignty (Malmvig, 2014). The Chinese believed that all the nations were entitled to a sovereign government, hence they have powers, and authority to control their own territory. From now onwards, the government should be responsible of their own authority. Global intervention should be evaded.
Identities of states tend to differ from each other. The United States and its Associates believed they belonged to a democratic world, which was against dictatorship. The Russians together with the Syrians believed they were entitled to a moderate government, hence argued that, the world of politics was facing a lot of threats from the religious extremist (Malmvig, 2014). Both the Russians and the Syrians fought to protect their regime against the Islamic extremists. Finally, the Chinese believed in a sovereign government, and did not entertain any form of intervention from external states.
According to Alexander Wendt, in constructivist point of view, “anarchy is what the governments make of it.” Therefore, the anarchical governing system is whatever the actors aspire to be. There is no reason that anarchism causes conflict or peace (Guzzini & Leander, 2005). According to the radical nature of universal systems, anarchy does not really lead to conflict. Conflict depends on the expectations we have for other people, and what we mean to others during social interaction. A lot of questions arise like the one asked by Cynthia Waber addressing to Alexander Wendt’s phrase if anarchy is what governments make of it. In the case of Syria, the answer is yes. The United States and its associates classify themselves as democrats (Guzzini & Leander, 2005). The United States wants to suspend the fights in Syria by using army tools and authorizations. The Americans believed that dictators could be gotten rid of by using non-democratic ways.
Russia seeks to maintain the current form of government in Syria, so any military interference should be evaded. China also opposes conflicts but suggests more peaceful methods and cooperation within the Syrian state (Guzzini & Leander, 2005). Therefore, universal politics are shaped by political conclusions, which depends on their political believe and interest in the perspective of war and peace. The United States and his associates looks to influence the world into political wars, whereas the Chinese and the Russians have been looking to bring together the government of Syria in order to find a solution to the ongoing internal religious wars.
In conclusion, the Syrian war was kindled, and influenced by the Arab revolution. Greed for power has been evident in the Middle East states with both internal and external forces getting involved. Different foreign countries have intervened which had different interests towards the people of Syria. Constructivism is one of the best theories that explain the series of events in Syria, as the internal war is built based on social identities. Lack of sovereignty and identity conflicts shared norms are some of the factors that ignite internal conflicts to take place. Through analyzing the dominant causes of a countries identity, behavior, and interest, the current disappointment of the status quo can be reviewed and altered to form one identity. Therefore the best solution brought out by constructivist to solve conflict peacefully is through diplomacy negotiations. Through identification of a common identity, trust, domestic, peace, social and legal norms will also be earned.
References
Gause III, F. G. (1999). Systemic approaches to Middle East international relations. International Studies Review, 1(1), 11-31.
Guzzini, S., & Leander, A. (2005). Constructivism and international relations: Alexander Wendt and his critics. Routledge.
Malmvig, H. (2014). Power, identity, and securitization in Middle East: Regional order after the Arab uprisings. Mediterranean Politics, 19(1), 145-148.