Minorities have never desired separation from Syria, nor has it ever been their demand. Historically, Christians strongly rejected French protection, while Alawites and Druze demanded during the 1936 strike to join the Syrian Republic. In affirmation of their wish, they voluntarily relinquished all federal privileges granted to them, aiming to eliminate any distinctions between them and their Syrian brothers in other regions and components.

Since the first military coup led by Husni al-Za’im in 1949, Syria and its people have been subjected to realities shaped by authorities that serve their own interests, fulfilling ambitions and desires that satisfy their supporters regionally, nationally, and internationally. No nation has been truly united except through widespread repression and exclusion.

The moment of Bashar al-Assad’s regime relinquishing power in early December 2024 provided a golden opportunity for all components to express their suppressed urges after decades of confiscation and oppression. This upheaval disrupted the Syrian political scene, plunging the country into unprecedented challenges—the dismantling of that grip and retreating into narrow circles that felt safer and more stable. This marked the beginning of a phase of redefining the identity, as Syrians as a people and Syria as a state faced a new de facto authority, which rules as a group, marginalizes other components of the nation from leadership and decision-making, and even from managing institutions, both large and small. This authority worsened the situation by failing to overcome itself, propagating takfiri ideology and a desire for erasure, openly committing massacres against minority- or characteristic-based regions. Such acts intensified these groups' desire to seek any means of survival—even secession.

While some abhor—or even accuse—those calling for regional secession, it must not be forgotten that the demand for separation is neither a new phenomenon nor an accident. There are many precedents where separation achieved its goal, not as a luxury but as a solution to intractable crises and a way to prevent more bloodshed. Many new states emerged, grew, and re-established relations with the entities they separated from, enjoying full sovereignty and actively practicing their independence after the dissolution of federations that once subdued them under central control.

One prominent example is the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which lasted for 69 years, from 1922 to 1991. Built on a single ideological, revolutionary, and party-based foundation transcending religious, ethnic, and ideological boundaries, it exerted influence over fifteen countries, controlling Eastern Europe, many parts of Asia, Africa, and the Arab world. It formed a political, economic, and military bloc that opposed the US, Europe, and Oceania throughout its existence. Despite this complex and turbulent reality, the collapse did not result in catastrophe; instead, independent, sovereign states with populations living according to their aspirations emerged, preserving their cultures. Russia, in particular, reduced burdens and commitments, focusing on managing its geography, and maintained its status as a great power, transforming its hegemony into alliances and remaining a major global player alongside the US.

The Syrian experience, as a single-state entity, has lasted less than ninety years. During this period, no ruling system managed to develop a true national identity or a concept of sovereignty. The Syrian people have never truly had the chance to express themselves or their will. Syria and its people remain under the same conditions—making calls for separation a logical and inevitable consequence of failed and miserable foundations, with no better prospects in a deadlocked, suffocating environment of sectarian and exclusionary governance, which pushes towards sectarian reactions and tendencies toward secession.

It is likely that Syria has exhausted its opportunities for unity. This is clearly reflected in the failure—indeed, the collapse—of the interim authorities’ ability to manage the country at all levels, along with the reactions of minorities targeted by this authority, who have moved toward models of self-governance, federalism, or even secession. Of course, the role of certain minority figures pushing toward this should not be ignored, nor should the ongoing international struggles over Syria, reflected in control over large parts of the country.

Therefore, a reconciliation with this miserable reality, acknowledgment of its existence, and a desire to escape the impasse that only leads to more bloodshed should be among the top priorities for Syrians. They should call for a conference to openly confront these issues, put everything on the table, and develop a joint plan to reshape Syria—at least on a federal basis—that establishes a new phase in the country's history, preserves lives, and halts the conflict. Without this, Syria risks a sharp and dangerous partition. 

Nizar Ghaleb Felihaan