The Decision Making Inside the Syrian Regime

Safwan Dawod
European Centre for Counterterrorism Studies and Intelligence, Latakia, Syria

Series: Terrorism, Hot Spots and Conflict-Related Issues
BISAC: POL037000



Volume 10

Issue 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Special issue: Resilience in breaking the cycle of children’s environmental health disparities
Edited by I Leslie Rubin, Robert J Geller, Abby Mutic, Benjamin A Gitterman, Nathan Mutic, Wayne Garfinkel, Claire D Coles, Kurt Martinuzzi, and Joav Merrick


Digitally watermarked, DRM-free.
Immediate eBook download after purchase.

Product price
Additional options total:
Order total:



The regime structure and its dominant relation can be studied through the standard and levels of decision characteristics, its making centers, and the basis of the official discourse as well as the mechanisms of investing the legitimacy conception. Studying the subjects of this book required the considering of the superimposition context which may be included in the causes of the crisis explosion; in view of the fact that it carries with itself a time particularity in the development of its internal corrosion (i.e., local consciousness), it justifies going into some historical and political issues. The time profundity provided by discussing some of these issues reveals some phenomena of the problem with the regime’s considerate discourse with and within the historical and political contexts of the Syrian society and their relation with hegemony patterns. This book, therefore, depended on social and critical ideas of the Syrian society. The most important problem which had not been previously treated enough was discussed: it is that the decision-making monopoly in Syria was accompanied by a selective process of the cognitive product practiced by the Syrian regime’s official discourse, a monopoly which led to profound defects with regard to controlling the future of Syria.

“Dominant power” is meant to distinguish between two correlated contexts which define both dominion and hegemony concepts, since the regime in Syria is the outcome of these two concepts, with their differences and intersections as a whole. Hegemony, on the other hand, belongs to economic powers, traditional bourgeois and extraordinary bourgeois which originated from plundering the state wealth during the reign of Baath, and its connection with Gulf capital. These are the powers which took hold of and prevailed over fortunes and investment opportunities and carried out interest deals with the influential people in the governmental institutions and administrations. They are the powers which excreted the economic class really controlling the Syrian economy and can be idiomatically designated as the Controlling Economic Powers (CEP). Hegemony belongs to the political powers of the Baathist ideology, institutions, administrations, armed forces and different security bodies that give orders to the state through the government and parliament to implement the decisions, which determine the structure of the state institution in Syria. This, also idiomatically, can be designated as Powers of Political Decision (PPD). Between these two powers, there is a strong interest relation so that the first provides the second with financial and material revenues in exchange for legislative and facilities from the second to make the investment jobs easier. It must be noted that the (PPD) are in a way controlled by internal balances, the most important of which is the balance with the symbols of the Superstructure of the Syrian Society.



The Development of the Popular Movement

Chapter 1. About the Syrian Society

Chapter 2. The Syrian Regime Structure

Chapter 3. The External Influences on Decision-Making inside the Syrian Regime


About the Author


Alan, George. Syria: neither bread nor freedom (London: zed Books, 2003), p. 2-3.
Amartya, Sen. Development of freedom (New York: Anchor Books, 1999), p. 19-20.
Anna, Borshchevskaya. Russia in the Middle East (Washington: Washington institute for near east policy, 2016), p. 48.
Daron, Acemoglu; Simon, Johnson; James, A. Robenson, “The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change and Economic Growth,” American Economic Review, 3, no. 95, (June 2005), p. 558-561.
Douglass, C. North, “Institutions, Ideology, and Economic Performance,” Cato Journal, 3 no. 11, (Winter 1992), p. 478.
Ismaiel, Orafi. Arabic National book (Damascus: Ministry of Culture press, 1977), p. 147-148.
James, C. Scott, Control the art of resistance: hidden Transcripts (Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1990), p. 212.
James, Mc. Gann. Global Go to Think Tank Index Report. Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2014), p. 5, 7.
Joas, Wagemakers. Salafism in Jordan: Political Islam in a Quietist Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 227.
John, Gaventa. Power and Powerlessness (Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1982), p. 124.
John, Schaar. Legitimacy in the modern state (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981), p. 20.
Jonas, R. Kunst; Lotte, Thomsen. “Prodigal sons: Dual Abrahamic categorization mediates the detrimental effects of religious fundamentalism on Christian-Muslim relations,” The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 25, no. 4 (2015), p. 298.
Karl, Mannheim. Ideology and utopia: an introduction to the sociology of knowledge (London: Routlage and Kegan Paul, 1954), p. 37.
Khalidah, Kaasis. the “Arab Spring” between the revolution and the chaos,” Al-Musakbal Al-Arabi Journal, No. 421 (March 2014), p. 222.
Mahdi, Amel. in the contradiction (Beirut: Farabi House, 1980), p. 35.
Michel, Foucault. Discipline and punishment: The birth of the prison (New York: Random House, 1979), p. 238.
Michel, Foucault. History of Sexuality, Part I: an introduction (New York: Pantheon books, 1978), p. 10.
Pierre, Bordeaux. Masculine Domination (Paris: Le Seuil, 1998), p. 88.
Pierre, Bordeaux. The outline of the theory of practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 94.
Rabee, Nasser; Zeki, Mehchy; Kchaled, Abo Ismaiel. Syrian crisis, rooted, economic and social impacts (Damascus: Syrian Center for Policy Research, 2013), p. 22, 24, 50.
Rudolph, Peters. Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton: Marcus Wiener publishers, 1996), p. 150.
Salah, Qansouah. Philosophy of sciences (Cairo: culture house, 1981), p. 72.
Samuel, Huntington. The Third Wave: Democratization in the late decimal century (Oklahoma: the University of Oklahoma House, 1991), p. 46.
Seymour, M. Lipset, The political man (New York: D and D house, 1960), p. 77.
Slavoj, Žižek. Subject ideologically High (London: Verso House, 1989), p. 37.
Sophie, Bessis. “De Quoi les révoltes arabes sont-elles le nom?” La Revue internationale et stratégique no. 83 (autumn 2011), p. 57.
Stuart, Hall. “Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies” Edited by David Morley and Kuan-Hsing Chen, Rutledge, New Fetter Lane, (London: 1996), p. 55.
Timothy, Mitchell. “Limited state: the study of the state curriculum and its critics,” the American Journal of Political Science, 1 no. 85 (1991), p. 81.

I think my book is suitable for strategic, defense, analysis, counterrorism institutions and for libraries of political departments of universities and governmental bodies as well as to People and groups interested in Middle East issues

You have not viewed any product yet.