Which country is that?

@@MichaelRossiPoliSci Syria :(

Hi Alaa, thank you for your comment. You've offered a lot here so let me try to address all the points that I see. 1. I think Syria would have remained a sultanistic state had it not been for the civil war simply because the Assad family and its extended network would continue to control most of the levers of power. But because Syria has been ruled by the Assad family for so long, some of the more noticeably oppressive features of sultanism have been tempered. Prior to the war, and in a scenario where war did not happen, there is a general collective understanding among many Syrians that "this is what it is, and while the Assad family is corrupt and monopolistic in authority, the alternatives we have are far worse and much more unpredictable." This connects with your reference to Saddam Hussein because there's this normative sense among the public that they would take a predictable dictatorship over something unknown, and possibly more chaotic. And like Iraq, the alternatives are far more disastrous than the status quo. For Syria, the alternatives are either weak militia groups, or the Islamic State, which is why many Syrians remained loyal to Assad. This may explain why you think Syria is post-totalitarian instead of sultanistic, but it's it's a type of routinized sultanism. 2. Many of the state-sponsored historical memories of the Ba'ath Party of Syria aren't entirely falsehoods either! These narratives are based on external influences from the French, Israelis, and Americans as you point out, which gives legitimacy to the regime and the nature of leadership in a country that is frequently manipulated and antagonized. This doesn't justify the brutality of the Assad regime, but it furthers the understanding of placing national security ahead of civil liberties, which will undoubtedly be reinforced once the civil war has formally ended. There is much evidence to suggest external actors enable and mobilize non-democratic groups in target country in order to challenge and hopefully overthrow the existing regime. Take a look at Steven Kinzer's book "Overthrow". It gives a good assessment of much of what you write in an historical and comparative way. Good luck with your thesis!

@@MichaelRossiPoliSci I very much agree with you that it does not justify the Assad brutality, nor does it explain why when I sit with Iraqi friends or Libyan friends and hear them say that we would prfere to go back to the old days because we were good. That's what I want to understand, I said it was heading to a post totalitarianism, because I was living in the country, and I was there for the Assad reforms in the years past to the civil war, Al baath party was nothing of influence mentality wise compared to Hafez era, for instance experienced the reforms in the cloth for schools instead of military to formal wear, and I experienced both chanting every morning " socialist, freedom and unity", and I experienced the absent of this mentality, and I can tell you, the power and the impact the baath party have is very different between my generation and the old one, it also works for privatization, for media liberation for private magazines to come back, he made the new relativity for the military after it was dominated by alwaties and so on. Please understand that this is not a defense on Bashar behalf, he is handling of the uprising is beyond brutal, I am just stating facts. If the International community would have followed with the transition offer diplomatically with al Asssad included , the war would not have been this bloody. The other point I am interested in is not the "unknown" is what is making the people choose dictatorships, it is the known present practice by the USA mainly and the west, which is giving justification and more influence for Russia and Iran, it has became a stigma to hear that the US encourage or the west stand with, words such as NATO and UN and Sanctions and humanitarian intervention, when people from the middle east hear this kind of words, and I am gonna go on the wimp here and say from my "although limited but still" interactions with people in Europe from different countries " please note that different here mean not US friendly countries" , I was surprised to hear that it is the same for them, hearing this words means nothing but danger and chaos. In Syria case there was a lot of secular and pupil movement that did not get sponsorship compared to ISIS and AL nusra, now I know that the narrative is that there was no clear front or united to back, but that is just a lie, the problem that the countries that are allies to the US "Turkey, Saudi Arabia and GCC in general", raced to finance the Islamic group that they turned into civil war in time record speed, and that these secular movements held the same position concerning identity and pro_ Palestine and anti_US intervention, that's why they were not sponsored, and the one who did and were speaking to the people from the US or the west had no legitimacy what so ever inside the country. Not to mention the effect of what was happening in Libya, and Egypt and Yemen, the problem with the US west policies, that they act as if they think that the people from the other side of the word can't see the hypocrisy when dealing with friendly dictatorship and unfriendly ones, and the continue to believe that they still have the same legitimacy. the regime would not have wished for a better scenario. The problem with the middle east that every change or uprising count somewhat on chance aftermath, but because of the US and West permeant interest in the middle east, the whole region is denied of that, no one there can act in faith of the chances of the future, as everyone there know it is either a "friendly regime" which will include a complete lost of identity or complete chaos. I really believe that today the international arena is enabling authoritarian more than they know, it a re-action that is more presence today than ever before.

@@MichaelRossiPoliSci and thank you! I will be reviewing the book.

You may also appreciate an interview Vladimir Putin gave in 2015 about Russia's involvement in Syria and his understanding of international law and legitimate constitutional procedures in Syria: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bNJmbNeDqrrSnKM.html

Thank you! I have seen it before. I saw Russia military in my own eyes on the ground. And believe me no one felt good having them. But in another note. An actual conversation was going, which I had in Syria and outside in Europe. If us as a country had to choose between being subject imperialist who would we prefer USA or Russia. Now this a real sad conversation. And most of the answers were Russia. Because most of the people believe they are closer to the way we think. And the countries that they have influenced seems to be doing better than the countries after USA intervention. Again I am just transferring the image here. As individual all I want to see is my country independent and democratic. Which seems to be impossible. I also hold more responsibility to the USA. Cuase simply USA advocat it self as the responsible major player in the international community. And USA has been doing more bad than good. Again I don't think it is understood how much leverage they are giving to the governments not just as a justification for violence from their part. I am talking about the people the mass opinions. The USA is not the voice of freedom anymore, on the countrary, people outside fear the US more than ever and it is in the worst way possible. They are holding to any other option that doesn't evolve US influence.

You're welcome 😊

I can see that.

@@MichaelRossiPoliSci However i personally used to call Iran a ""Decaying regime" Btw can you talk about Democratic dictatorships in the future? (Aka Nations that follow the ideas of democracy but is unable to be democratic because the Country is way to unstable, A example of such a government is the Republic of China in exile on Taiwan)