The past century in the Middle East has been marked by a constant pendulum swing between centralized states and opposing demands for federalism or autonomy. Today, as Syria’s future is debated, one question stands above all: Will Syria remain a centralized state, or will it move toward a decentralized structure—governed by federal or autonomous regions?
At first glance, this question appears crucial, as the chosen governance model directly shapes the rights, representation, and security of its peoples. Yet, in reality, the issue goes far beyond the mere form of the administrative system. Unless the mindset in the Middle East changes, both centralized and federal models tend to produce the same outcome.
Without a Change of Mindset, Nothing Truly Changes
In the Middle East, politics remains heavily influenced by religion, and religion is deeply entangled with politics. Democracy and pluralism may exist in rhetoric, but in practice, most groups in power establish their own centers and suppress diversity. Dozens of dictators have fallen, decades of struggle have passed—yet oppression continues, merely in different forms. Replacing a dictator is not enough; the mindset must change.
In any society, as long as:
- Peoples do not see each other as equals,
- Minority rights are not secured,
- The rule of law is not upheld,
- Science, education, and free thought are not fostered,
every new government will simply reproduce the old mentality.
Centralized or Federal: Where the Difference Disappears
Even in a federal system, regions are compelled to cooperate. If mechanisms fail, the system itself becomes a source of conflict. Likewise, a centralized system that does not recognize the diversity of peoples, languages, and cultures can only result in oppression.
One striking fact in the history of the Middle East is this: no people have genuinely fought for the rights of another. Each pursued its own freedom struggle but rarely supported the equality and justice of others. This lack of solidarity has blocked the growth of a shared democratic culture. The lesson is clear: unless peoples defend each other’s rights as much as their own, neither centralism nor federalism can provide a real solution.
Historical Examples
- Iraq: After Saddam Hussein’s fall, a federal system was introduced, granting autonomy to the Kurdistan region. But the balance between Shia, Sunni, and Kurds failed. On paper, federalism existed, but without a change in mindset, the system only produced more conflict.
- Lebanon: The sectarian political system was designed to guarantee power-sharing. Yet, as each group pursued only its own interests, the country slid into decades of civil war. Today, the system still exists but remains paralyzed.
- Palestine: Even within the Palestinian community, divisions between Hamas and Fatah weaken the common struggle for rights. If one people cannot unite among themselves, solidarity with others becomes even more difficult.
These examples demonstrate that, whether centralized or federal, governance structures in the Middle East bring no lasting solutions without a change of mindset.
In debating Syria’s future, the key question is not which model—centralized or federal—is superior, but rather which mentality will give life to the system. Without a genuine shift in thinking, even the most democratic-looking federal structure can easily revert into another form of centralism.
What is most urgently needed in Syria, and in the Middle East as a whole, is the deep rooting of democratic culture: mutual respect, adherence to international law, and an understanding of equal citizenship. Without these foundations, neither a centralized nor a federal model will bring true change.
