Introduction
The evidence presents various theories, the consideration of which may explain one or another event in politics. According to rationalism, a person should take into account all the data relevant to a certain problem in formulating his or her convictions, and preference should be given to none of them. In their turn, the paramount task of transitologists is to explore the ways of advancing the social system by investigating how specific events affect the further development of the political regime. This paper explores the Syrian conflict in terms of rationalism and transitology by defining these theories and relating them to the given context.
Defining Rationalism and Transitology (Essential Elements and Powers)
Both institutionalism and the theory of a rational choice have created a rationalistic trend in political theory that is also known as rationalism. Its supporters recognize that the political choice is viewed as the result of the desires, beliefs, and actions of an individual society (Telman 55). In other words, in the opinion of the supporters of the theory of the rational choice, it is perfectly permissible to regard the politeia as one actor that has an integrated system of stable values ​​and the ability to realize one’s desires. Thus, the approach to international politics or the theory of economic planning is transferred to domestic policy. The core element of the above-mentioned theory is an action that should provide the best way to satisfy the desires of an actor by the accepted rational beliefs that should correspond to a more meaningful concept of rationality (Telman 55). The rational action, thus, includes three powers, due to which the optimality is achieved. The search for the best action with certain views and desires, the formation of the most reasonable conviction, and the collection of necessary evidence in the presence of certain desires and taking into account previous beliefs compose rationalism.
A theory of transitology implies the occurrence of social and institutional transformations associated with moving from autocratic, totalitarian, and authoritarian regimes to democratic methods of governance (Gans-Morse 321). During the first phase, the change in the balance of power between the ruling and opposing groups is associated with increased pressure from the latter and a split of the former, which can either lead to the confrontation that will cause repression and increased authoritarianism or, conversely, weaken old political institutions. The second phase of direct democratization is connected with some progress of the reformers and the achievement of a compromise with the moderate forces of the ruling elite regarding the constitution of the basic democratic institutions, the possibility of which opens with a preponderance of the opposition forces. Thus, the key powers of transitology are that it becomes a specific measure of civilization and the progressiveness of the socio-political system, the basis of social relations, and their regulator (Gans-Morse 325). The importance of the paradigm of transitology for modern social sciences, political practice, and ideological support are also increasing. Among the pivotal elements of the identified theory, one may note democratization, transactions, compromise, and conflict.
Relating Rationalism and Transitology to the Syrian Conflict
The war in Syria is a multifaceted armed conflict on the territory of the above country, which began in 2011 as a local civil confrontation and gradually evolved into the uprising against President Bashar Assad’s regimen. The dominance of representatives of the religious Alawites in leading positions, to which Assad belongs, also caused discontent. The departure of Assad became the major condition for the opposition to start negotiations on the settlement of the situation. From this perspective, it becomes evident that the conflict can be resolved in terms of the rationalism theory. However, a peaceful settlement in Syria breaks down due to Bashar Assad’s tough stance. The mentioned formally acting President intends to bring the war to a victorious end despite the peacekeeping position of the countries intervening in the conflict such as the United States, Russia, and others, trying to achieve a cease-fire between the warring sides. Applying rationalism, one may assume that even if the truce is announced, each of the parties will continue to use the weapon to ensure safety. Perhaps, the truce would certainly be respected, if not the militaristic habits of Assad, who is capable of influencing this situation. Also, peacemaking countries call for a political solution within the framework of the Geneva peace process, while Damascus prefers a forced scenario.
Considering the Syrian conflict in terms of transitology, it is appropriate to focus on its changing nature. It has altered significantly compared to what it was in early 2011, not only politically and religiously but also concerning the qualitative growth of resources and weapons used by the parties (Telman 62). As a result of these dynamics, the Syrian internal political conflict turned into a full-scale local war, which is defined as “proxy war” in international science and characterized by several dimensions such as social, religious, economic, ethnic, regional, and global. The dynamics of the conflict is exacerbated by the power struggle between regional players (Heydemann and Leenders 69). In particular, the actual alliance of Syria’s political regime with Iran, Iraq, and Hezbollah is opposed to the main regional forces supporting the anti-regime – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, which are based on Sunni Islamism.
The described fashion of the Syrian conflict demonstrates that a consolidating force of the Syrian conflict is an order of magnitude that is more a complex of traditional and modern ideas than it seemed in the framework of the theory of transitology. The viability of populist authoritarianism is largely ensured by a successful combination of modern (external) and traditional (internal) forms of political thinking (Heydemann and Leenders 30). It is also significant to comprehend that the stability of the regime towards democratic changes was weakened by struggles in the ruling elite with the most persistent interest in economic liberalization, primarily the national bourgeoisie. Due to the mentioned properties, Syria’s political regime is by no means as fragile as its internal and external opponents regard. The indicators of its viability are survival after recurring challenges such as economic crises, internal uprisings, local warfare, intervention, and intense international pressure.
Conclusion
To conclude, one should emphasize that of all the theories to the study of the conflict in Syria, there is no single model that can necessarily ensure the democratic transit. Moreover, there is no universal result of applying different theories since the result of their implementation may be different. As a way to resolve the conflict, it seems to be the best option to apply transitology, thus addressing political change as the paradigm shift approach, which completely negates the importance of previous assumptions about the political structure, the relationships between the government and citizens as well as the distribution and the use of political power.
Works Cited
Gans-Morse, Jordan. “Searching for Transitologists: Contemporary Theories of Post-Communist Transitions and the Myth of a Dominant Paradigm.” Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 20, no. 4, 2004, pp. 320-349.
Heydemann, Steven, and Reinoud Leenders. Middle East Authoritarianisms: Governance, Contestation, and Regime Resilience in Syria and Iran. Stanford University Press, 2013.
Telman, Jeremy. “Non-State Actors in the Middle East: A Challenge for Rationalist Legal Theory.” Cornell International Law Journal, vol. 46, no. 1, 2013, pp. 51-73.