Assad’s Victory – stabilization or a new round of crisis?

The Syrian presidential elections were held on June 3, 2014, with Bashar al-Assad emerging victorious. Aleksei Sarabyev, head of the Information and Publishing Department at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, talks to RIAC about how this will affect the internal political situation in the country, what the implications for the international arena are, and what lies ahead for Syria.

The Syrian presidential elections were held on June 3, 2014, with Bashar al-Assad emerging victorious. Aleksei Sarabyev, head of the Information and Publishing Department at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, talks to RIAC about how this will affect the internal political situation in the country, what the implications for the international arena are, and what lies ahead for Syria.

How representative were the elections in Syria? Does Assad’s victory reflect the actual situation in the country?

The elections were observed by representatives of 14 countries, so the results are quite legitimate. However, there are people who clearly do not recognize the elections, in particular, the participants of the G7. Their main argument boils down to the fact that only residents of the areas that are controlled by the government were able to vote, and therefore the elections could not reflect the will of all the people. In my view, the question would be better put this way: What did the presidential election show? These elections, no matter how big Assad’s victory may have been, clearly demonstrated that even under severe conditions, the Syrian population is highly motivated to be a part of the political process. Secondly, the elections show faith that the fierce line Assad is carrying out in response to attempts to split the country and radicalize social relations will save Syria.

As for his landslide victory, I am reminded of something I heard the other day from a Chinese expert in Beijing that is very fitting. He said that victory for Assad means it is he who is winning on the battlefield. By the way, if you imagine the far-fetched situation in which elections were held in territories controlled by the opposition, it is very unlikely that the head of the “representative of the Syrian people” (this is what the West is calling him) Ahmed Jarboe would have received the same number of votes. The leader on the battlefield, apparently, is not him.

Will the elections have a stabilizing influence on the crisis in Syria? What other consequences could arise, both domestically and in the international arena?

It is very difficult to predict developments in the situation in Syria. But the election is unlikely to have a significant stabilizing effect. It may serve to further consolidate Assad’s supporters. But chances are the elections will make it more difficult to convene the Geneva-3 in the future.

As for the positive effects, we can assume the following: A moderate core will form among the opposition, which will not discard the possibility of dialogue with the current regime; the opposition will dissociate itself from the more radical elements, and one of the terms of the agreement with the government will be to hold new presidential elections after the ceasefire in Syria. But we should acknowledge that however desirable this scenario is, it is far less realistic. In any case, it is time consuming, because the current “moderate” with whom the West is working still stipulates that Assad be barred from a position in the higher offices in Syria in the future.

Joseph Eid / AFP

How have the United States and the European Union reacted to Assad’s election? Will this lead to an overall change in attitude of the leaders of these countries towards Assad, as well as to the situation in Syria?

The West’s negative reaction is understandable. Assad has made another attempt to legitimize his power and believes it to be successful. The hysterical reaction to this event, however, seems strange. After all, the West has long believed that Assad has lost his legitimacy, and these elections should not fundamentally change anything with regard to his position. The key point here, apparently, is that the United States does not believe that the Syrian issue is paramount in its strategic plan. Thus, there have been no major changes in NATO’s attitude to the elections in Syria.

In an interview with the French media on June 4, 2014, Vladimir Putin said that “Syria could turn into a sort of Afghanistan… an absolutely uncontrolled hotbed of terrorist threats.” How likely is this to happen?

It certainly has the potential to do just that, and apparently the West is making efforts to ignore it. There is hope that the contradictions in relations with the Persian Gulf, as well as a line of rapprochement with Saudi Arabia and Iran, will help turn the gaze of these countries away from the heightened tensions among the Syrian opposition and reduce international aid to the Syrian opposition fighters. However, the American president is likely to keep his promise about the next tranche of aid that he made to the chairman of the NCSROF last month. But the promise that the military and financial assistance will not reach Islamist extremist groups fighting on the side of the opposition will be really difficult to keep.

Assad has declared a general amnesty. Could you comment on whether this move will affect the stability of the situation in the country and whether or not this decision is motivated by more than the obvious attempts to increase his popularity among citizens?

Obviously, each amnesty that Assad declares is for a wider section of prisoners. The first amnesty applied only to deserters. Given the adverse socio-economic situation in the country, the president explicitly chooses the lesser of two evils. By not being able to detain a huge number of prisoners, and not wanting to spread hostility towards his regime among their friends and relatives, he is demonstrating the right of the strongest: mercy. The prisoners who have been granted amnesty, as well as their families, will see for themselves that this action is a sign that the Assad administration desires to instil a sense of credibility in its citizens and once again demonstrate a human face to the otherwise harsh regime under the leadership of a lion (“assad” is Arabic for “lion”).

Interviewed by Ilya Ivanov, RIAC Program Assistant