Syria needs a New Deal

Socialism in Syria will forever be associated with the Assad regime’s Ba’th Party, officially the Arab Socialist Ba’th Party. While most Syrians now distance themselves from the term "socialism," many still fundamentally support its basic precepts, such as free schools and hospitals, and subsidies on essential items like fuel and bread. These social protections, however, came with a price tag: a one-party dictatorship and a lack of any popular accountability. But an end of one does not necessarily mean the end of the other.

Basic social welfare policies are still popular in Syria, as shown by SiT’s recent polling. The problem might not be the social welfare policies themselves, but the association with one brand of state socialism. Today, Syrians need to develop a new political lexicon they can rally around to lift themselves up from mass destruction, displacement and poverty.

Given the growing discontent over economic conditions, Syria’s new rulers might want to dramatically rethink their neoliberal approach to reconstruction in favour of a social and economic programme that would benefit the many, not the well-connected few. Syria needs an internationally-backed ‘New Deal’ to rebuild housing and infrastructure on a massive scale, as well as a reformed healthcare service and a viable social security system.

The current investment initiatives in Syria echo those of neighboring Lebanon in the 1990s. Under Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, liberalising reforms heavily targeted the tourism and real estate sectors, as well as the finance and banking sectors, at the expense of labor-intensive sectors, such as agriculture and industry.

Nowhere was this better encapsulated than in Hariri’s real estate project Solidere, which razed the old souks of downtown Beirut to make way for luxury shops and high-rise apartments. The property rights of the original homeowners were converted into shares, which many property owners were forced to liquidate out of desperate need for cash.

Similarly, the rising economic elite in Syria is increasingly turning to luxury investment projects to rebuild the country, sometimes at the expense of property rights, as well as the rights of victims of the Assad regime. Nowhere has this been better captured than by a forthcoming project to transform Mezzeh Airport to civilian use for businessmen arriving in private jets, which would destroy forensic evidence of mass graves and override the rights of owners that had been expropriated under Assad.

In order to attract large-scale investments, the Syrian government is opting for tax reductions and customs exemptions, drawing on the language of neoliberal efficiency. However, these measures constitute de facto subsidies to the private sector. The government should instead consider reconstruction programmes that directly and tangibly benefit Syrians, while indirectly benefiting the private sector.

The New Deal in the US was unprecedented in both scale and scope, and aimed to respond to the economic crisis of the Great Depression (1929-1939). The state-led programme carried out large-scale infrastructure projects that employed millions and advanced social protections. This despite US President Franklin D. Roosevelt going to great lengths to distance it from any association with socialism. It was not without its limitations, however, as structural weaknesses perpetuated some socioeconomic inequalities, especially for women and people of colour, while healthcare was not universal.

A Syrian New Deal would allow for the Syrian government to implement its ‘Syria Without Camps’ initiative. It would also generate much needed jobs in a country where 90% of the population lives below the poverty line. It would also be a boost to the private sector. With higher income, consumer demand would increase and stimulate the creation of new businesses.

The role of the international community would be integral given the new Syrian government ostensibly lacks the required liquidity. European states could provide much needed expertise on how to institute social protections, rather than funding patchwork humanitarian and development projects. Meanwhile, Gulf states could supplement such efforts with much needed capital. A programme of this kind would allow for lasting stability, addressing some of the root causes of terrorism and migration, rather than merely responding to them further down the line.

In order for an internationally backed plan to happen, the Syrian government needs to dramatically rethink its social and economic policies. As someone at the Ministry of Public Works and Housing told me, the government still does not have a vision for reconstruction in the absence of international funding. However, the Syrian government first needs a vision in order to attract international donors.

A Syrian New Deal would not only allow the country to rebuild at scale, it would allow it to become a beacon for a region marked by some of the highest, if not the highest, rates of inequality worldwide. Progress will not be made unless socialist precepts are saved from the bonfire of the Ba’th Party.