Syria Today | Changing Tactics

The concept of civil disobedience was introduced to the Syrian protest movement. What are the costs and effects of this strategy?

By Razan Rashidi
Photo Carole al-Farah

After months of protests, anti-government activists called for civil disobedience. The resulting “Dignity Strike” started on December 11, 2011 and was supported by many opposition groups including the Local Coordination Committees (LCC) and the Syrian Revolution General Commission.

Using social networks, leaflets, text messages and even balloons with the strike’s logo released in Damascus and Dera’a, organisers called for the closure of shops, unproductivity at work, private or public, and boycotts of the local administrative elections, schools and universities. People were also encouraged to abstain from paying bills and dealing with any governmental institutions. On the other hand, pro-government activists called for the strike to be boycotted.

Not all in favour
The response to strike calls varied in different Syrian cities and neighbourhoods and the number of people who took part in the strike is hard to estimate. On the first day of the strike, state-run news agency SANA wrote that “Syrian figures” announced they would not participate in the strike. On the other hand, the LCC reported on their website that many Syrians from different areas responded to the initiative.

“I support the revolution but I have never participated in a demonstration because I am scared of getting arrested or even killed,” said a 22-year-old business student who lives in Damascus’ Malki neighbourhood. “But I have been carrying out all the strike’s initiatives because it is a peaceful and safe way to voice my opinion,” she added.

A spokesperson for the campaign, Tamer Alresh, told Syria Today that the strike had a positive effect on Syrian society in general. “The Dignity Strike succeeded in revitalising life in civil society, which has been marginalised for decades in Syria.”

However, some people believe that instead of helping  society to unify, the strike may rather have caused greater polarisation between people. Bassam al-Kadi, a Syrian journalist and women’s rights activist, said that “the strike forced more people to have an extreme position against the protest movement, and some sympathisers with the movement resent such calls and actions.”

Hayan Sulaiman, a political science professor at Tishreen Public University in Latakia, said that he did not agree with the methods used. “Syria is facing a conspiracy and calls for striking are means by which the country’s enemies are imposing their will on Syrians, causing disruption and harming normal people,” he said. He added that in cities such as Idleb, bakeries were forced to close due to violence from “armed groups”, leaving communities without basic foodstuffs. 

The strike’s peaceful, non-violent and voluntary character, as announced by its organisers, was questioned by some people. Several business owners said they felt pressured to take part in the strike. “I didn’t want to close my shop but I did so because I was afraid that local residents might damage the window,” said Abou Imad, a butcher in Zamalka, close to Damascus. Some people claimed through Syrian media that their shops were attacked because they did not take part in the strike.

On the other hand, others complained about repercussions they faced due to their participation in the strike. Ibrahim, a shopkeeper from Hama who participated in the strike, told Syria Today: “At 11am, security agents knocked on my door and I was taken down to my electronics store and ordered to open it. I hesitated for a matter of seconds, so they bashed open the shop’s door, pushed me inside and smashed most of the store equipment.”

The right time?
The economic situation of many Syrians has worsened since protests started. Many people have lost their jobs, private investors’ incomes have fallen, and some were forced to close their businesses.  Therefore, some argue that calls for general disobedience at this stage will make it more difficult for Syrians to survive.

Kadi said that average citizens are the first ones to be hit by such actions. “The majority of Syrian people, like taxi drivers, workers, farmers, and shopkeepers, depend on daily income. They are the most affected by the current events in general, and the ‘strike’ in particular.”

However, Abou Lina, who resides in France and was one of the strike’s organisers, told Syria Today via Skype that “no one has completely lost their source of income. Some shops were targeted and robbed because of participation in the strike, but such things were not new for Syrian revolutionaries.” 

In fact, the organisers, through their media campaign, stressed that shops should close only at certain times during the day and on specific dates. “The strike was for a few hours per day, so trade hasn’t been affected at all. On days when people are encouraged to close all day, generally they reopen at night so local communities get their needs fulfilled,” Abou Lina added. Also, the calls for the strike excluded pharmacies and medical institutions.

Too young to strike?
The biggest controversy was caused by calls for children to stay home from school. “I won’t go to a school where our neighbour was arrested…a school from which my friend was taken by security,” read one of the demonstration’s banners in Zabadani, in rural Damascus. YouTube videos showed empty schools during the first week of the strike in December.

However, the number of schools that responded to the strike is hard to estimate. In protest hubs such as Homs, many schools are not operating due to security concerns or because teachers have left. In his speech on January 10, President Bashar al-Assad mentioned that 50 percent of students’ education is being interrupted and more than 900 schools have been attacked.

Given the obstacles that the educational system is already facing, calls for boycotting schools caused a debate as to whether the organisers had the right to involve children in politics, especially at the cost of their education.

Alresh agreed that “children should not be deprived of education for political aims.” However, he also believes that “nowadays in Syria, [children] are being denied their basic rights, including the right to life and health care. Keeping them away from school can actually help to protect them.”

On the other hand, UNICEF Representative in Syria Sherazade Boualia stressed that children’s fundamental right to education should be respected and supported at all times, especially in time of crisis. “Schools are not only places of learning; they also represent the normality necessary in children’s lives.”

Effect on whom?
Recently, organisational bodies called for a second phase of the strike, named “Regaining Rights”.  In this phase, which started on January 1, people have been asked to buy from shops that committed to the strike, rename their streets, and raise the independence flag on public buildings. However, in this phase, boycotting schools is no longer mentioned.

Some people disagree that a general strike can affect the state.  Sulaiman said, “‘striking’ failed all over the world. As long as dialogue and the reform process are on-going, we all should enforce our strengths against the conspiracy by ensuring our independent economic and political decisions.”

One of the strike’s objectives was putting pressure on the Syrian regime, which would result in the release of all detainees and the withdrawal of the army and armed manifestations from cities. However, the question of whether the strike really affects the regime remains open. “Indicators of the strike’s effects on the regime are mainly indirect, such as governmental media’s counter-calls against the strike, advocacy of the patriotic duty of continuing to work and produce, and fighting the strike by all means, even violence,” Abou Lina said.