A revolution is supposed to transform society, often driven by a clear vision for the future and a commitment to radical change, Wael Sawah writes.
I find myself at a loss when it comes to understanding the origins and conclusions of certain trends. One morning, I awaken to find the world abuzz with a new trend, dominating both the media and social platforms, subjecting individuals to relentless scrutiny. Yet, within days, this trend vanishes as abruptly as it emerged, leaving behind a society that quickly forgets the fervor with which they once hurled accusations at one another. The latest Syrian trend revolves around a question of profound significance: Is what is unfolding in Syria a revolution or a civil war?
Currently, Syrians and their allies find themselves split into two distinct camps. The first group passionately defends the view that the events in Syria constitute a revolution, vehemently opposing those who label it a civil war. They regard themselves as the true stakeholders, protectors of the revolution’s sanctity, daring anyone to tarnish its revered status. Opposite them stands a more detached group, Syrians who perceive the ongoing turmoil as a blemish upon their ideals, tainting the purity of the vision they once held dear.
At the heart of this schism lies a fundamental divergence in the perception of good and evil. To one faction, “revolution” symbolizes absolute good, while “civil war” is synonymous with unending evil. Yet, not every revolution embodies pure good, nor is every civil war wholly evil. The October Bolshevik Revolution, for example, brought some benefits, but the greater and more enduring impact was one of profound harm. Similarly, the Iranian Revolution led to widespread political, economic, military, social, and cultural devastation both within and beyond Iran’s borders. Conversely, the Spanish Civil War and the American Civil War, despite their violence, carried a greater measure of nobility than baseness, even though fascism triumphed in the former.
In theory, a revolution is supposed to transform society, often driven by a clear vision for the future and a commitment to radical change. Ideally, it serves as a means, not an end, to foster human liberation and embrace the most advanced values and concepts. In contrast, a civil war typically centers on issues of legitimacy, governance, and identity within a political framework. While revolution is often viewed positively, civil war bears the stigma of destruction and division, focusing on the conflict itself rather than offering a transformative vision.
Revolution and Civil War in Modern Society
In his book Civil Wars: A History of Ideas, historian David Armitage offers a profound exploration of the concept of civil war, tracing its evolution from the days of ancient Rome to the complexities of the modern era. Armitage meticulously examines how the definitions and interpretations of civil war have changed over time and how the very act of labelling a conflict as such carries significant implications. This exploration also delves into the distinction between civil war and revolution, illuminating how these concepts have shaped political societies and the frameworks of international law.
Armitage, a Harvard professor of history, employs a method that marries the longue durée approach—focusing on long-term historical structures—with a genealogical analysis influenced by the likes of Nietzsche and Foucault. His aim is to unpack the relationship between civil war and the broader concept of war, revealing how the language surrounding civil war has become deeply ingrained in political discourse. Through his work, Armitage challenges the simplistic binary of good versus evil often associated with these terms, instead presenting a more nuanced understanding that both revolution and civil war, though seemingly opposed, can be viewed as different manifestations of internal conflict within a political society.
Armitage argues that both revolutions and civil wars are forms of internal strife, arising from within a political society as opposing groups vie for control. These conflicts are frequently marked by intense violence and societal division, often leading to significant political and social changes—whether progressive or regressive. A key similarity between the two concepts is that both unfold within a state or political society and involve rival factions contending for power. Each can precipitate the collapse of the existing order, ushering in substantial political, social, or economic transformations that reshape the political landscape.
However, Armitage also delineates the critical differences between these two concepts. Revolution is often portrayed as a constructive, hopeful endeavor, driven by the ambition to forge a new and improved political system. In contrast, civil war is depicted as a destructive and divisive force, one that rends the social fabric apart. Revolutions that succeed in establishing a new order are typically remembered as moments of liberation and progress, while civil wars are often recalled for their devastation, especially if they fail to yield any clear positive outcomes.
Moreover, civil wars can intersect with international conflicts, attracting foreign intervention based on the perceived legitimacy of one faction over another. While successful revolutions culminate in the recognition of a new government or state, civil wars may persist as unresolved internal struggles, their outcomes uncertain and their impacts far-reaching. Through this lens, Armitage invites us to reconsider the ways in which we understand and engage with these profound and often tragic forms of internal conflict.
The Paradox of Unity and Division
Civil wars present a profound paradox, pitting combatants against one another within a single political community, despite sharing a common national or cultural identity. This inherent contradiction underscores the intricate dynamics at play in such conflicts.
The term “civil war” originated in ancient Rome, a paradigmatic political community that grappled with numerous internal conflicts. These struggles not only involved military clashes but also fundamental debates over the republic’s identity. As historian David Armitage astutely observes, civil wars are characterized by a contradictory unity within division, where combatants vie for control of a shared political entity.
Roman historians and philosophers have long grappled with this paradox, recognizing civil wars as a recurring feature of complex societies. Some historians, both ancient and modern, have posited that civil wars are an inevitable aspect of sophisticated political societies. A notable example is the American Civil War, where the federal government in the North viewed the Southern Confederacy’s struggle as a rebellion against legitimate authority, rather than a legitimate bid for independence. This framing had far-reaching implications for the war’s prosecution and the treatment of its participants. Ultimately, the Union’s victory and the conflict’s characterization as a “civil war” reinforced the notion that, despite division, the United States remained a unified nation.
Transcending Borders
The repercussions of civil war extend far beyond the confines of the affected nation, often entailing profound consequences under international law. The 18th-century Swiss political scientist Emer de Vattel posited that civil wars could be regarded as international conflicts, thereby justifying foreign intervention, particularly if one side’s cause is just. In his seminal work, The Law of Nations, de Vattel argued that civil wars could be classified as international conflicts if one side’s cause is rooted in fighting oppression or gross injustice, granting foreign powers the right to intervene in such cases.
Vattel’s groundbreaking views challenged the traditional notion of absolute state sovereignty, suggesting that the international community has a role in upholding justice within a state’s borders. By advocating for the legitimacy of foreign intervention in civil wars under certain circumstances, Vattel established a legal and moral framework that blurred the lines between internal and international conflicts. His ideas laid the foundation for subsequent developments in international law, including the principles of humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which emphasize the international community’s responsibility to intervene in cases of grave injustice or human rights violations within a state.
The American Revolution exemplifies the overlap between revolution and civil war, as it was essentially a conflict between the indigenous population of a British colony, with some advocating for independence and others seeking to remain under British rule. However, the revolution’s leaders framed the conflict as a war of independence rather than a civil war within the British Empire, securing crucial foreign support, particularly from France. This strategic framing transformed what could have been remembered as a failed civil war into a successful revolution. Similarly, the American Civil War raised complex questions about foreign intervention and the application of international law to internal conflicts, underscoring the intricate dynamics at play in such situations.
Revolution: A Beacon of Hope and Progress
In stark contrast to the destructive and divisive connotations of civil war, revolutions are often heralded as transformative and redemptive processes, driven by an unwavering commitment to progress. Although both revolutions and civil wars may involve comparable levels of violence and upheaval, they are distinguished by their perceived purpose and the narrative that surrounds them. Revolutions are widely regarded as deliberate and collective efforts to create a more just and equitable political order, whereas civil wars are often seen as internecine struggles that tear asunder the very fabric of society.
This distinction has its roots in the Enlightenment, which celebrated the power of reason, progress, and the potential for societal improvement. Enlightenment thinkers, such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, reframed revolution as a necessary catalyst for the evolution of societies toward greater freedom, equality, and popular sovereignty. By challenging the existing social, political, and religious orders, these visionaries championed a new era of liberty, equality, and democratic ideals. This compelling narrative has historically legitimized the violence of revolutions, particularly when they succeed in establishing a new political order. The French Revolution stands as a paradigmatic example of this phenomenon, as it triumphantly replaced an antiquated socioeconomic structure with a new, more enlightened one.
Now What Is It Then in Syria?
Understanding the intricate interplay between civil war and revolution is crucial for comprehending the nature of conflict and its profound ability to reshape societies. These forms of internal conflict are not merely historical phenomena; they remain deeply relevant in the modern world. The ongoing civil war in Syria, alongside similar conflicts elsewhere, serves as a stark reminder that these struggles are not solely about the pursuit of power. They are also about identity, legitimacy, and the contested visions for the future of political societies.
In today’s world, the distinctions between civil war and revolution are increasingly significant. As internal conflicts continue to arise, the way they are framed—as either civil wars or revolutions—will significantly influence how the international community responds. A deep understanding of the historical evolution of these terms and their meanings can assist policymakers and scholars in navigating the complexities of contemporary conflicts and in crafting more effective solutions.
The Syrian conflict provides a particularly complex example, blending elements of both revolution and civil war. To fully grasp the nature of Syria’s ongoing crisis, one must carefully analyze how these elements intersect and influence the unfolding events.
If we agree, as previously discussed, that a revolution is a social act aimed at transforming society—armed with a clear vision for the future, characterized by a sense of ideal possibilities, and driven by a desire for radical change—then we can easily classify the tremendous upheaval that began in Syria as a revolution. There is no doubt that the Syrian cause is just, as Syrians took to the streets to demand an end to persistent injustice, brutal tyranny, and pervasive corruption. The young men and women who sparked this revolution had a genuine and clear vision for Syria’s future, a vision first articulated in the political manifesto of the local coordination committees, a document worthy of independent study.
However, as we reflect on the dynamics discussed in this article—particularly the ways in which civil wars and revolutions can overlap, especially when foreign powers intervene based on the perceived legitimacy of one side—we must acknowledge the tragic evolution of the Syrian conflict. The involvement of regional and international powers, their competing interests, and the willingness of many Syrians to shift allegiances and join various factions, compounded by the horrifying rise of Islamic jihadist movements, has transformed what began as a just and visionary revolution into a protracted civil war. The revolution, once a means to achieve profound social transformation, has in many ways become an end in itself, leading to a quagmire of violence and division, the resolution of which remains elusive.
In this context, Syria’s struggle illustrates the perilous path from revolution to civil war, underscoring the importance of understanding these concepts not just in theory, but in their real-world implications. The Syrian conflict, with its complex layers of revolution and civil war, offers a sobering lesson on the difficulties of maintaining a clear vision and purpose amid the chaos of prolonged internal strife. The outcome of this tragic situation is difficult to foresee, but it stands as a poignant reminder of the fragile line between the aspirations of revolution and the devastating realities of civil war.