__________________________________________________________
Saadehs Conception of Independence
By Dr. Edmond Melhem
From
Sa’adeh’s writings, either from the articles he
wrote before he established his party or from
his later works, one can extract a theory of
independence. This theory can be easily
constructed simply because all its propositions
are tied to one theme, i.e., the idea of the
nation. In other words, whenever Sa’adeh talked
about independence, he meant "national"
independence and, more specifically, the
independence of the Syrian nation, the most
central theme in his thought.
First,
Sa’adeh distinguished national independence from
political independence. The latter type is
incomplete, though it can admittedly constitute
a decisive step towards national independence,
whereas the former can be characterized as
"actual" and "complete," for it embraces all
spheres of life. Thus, Sa’adeh spoke of economic
and spiritual independence and saw that true
independence should be based on social, economic
and political foundations.[1]
To explain his conception of national
independence, Sa’adeh compared his position to
that of other politicians. He said:
It is
possible for me to pinpoint the difference
between my position and that of the so-called
politicians toward my people. Whereas my
position evolved until it settled upon the
national basis, theirs was and still is based on
[mere] political premises. [2]
Actual
independence, Sa’adeh argued, is achieved
through the will of the people, and is a result
of their resolute determination. It should not
come as a donation from another country. Nor
should it be announced by the leader of an
occupying foreign army. Actual independence is
achieved only by the nation itself.[3]
From this perspective, Sa’adeh could not
regard the state of Greater Lebanon as
independent. To him, this State had not been
announced by a Lebanese institutional council
elected by the people. Rather, "it was announced
by the leader of an occupying foreign army, in a
conspiracy with some religious institutions and
feudalists and their beneficiaries."[4]
To
Sa’adeh, moreover, the independence of Lebanon
meant that this entity should be independent
from France and united with the rest of the
nation, whereas Louis Khalil and other clergymen
disallowed challenging the French Mandate
authorities. To this group of people, the
independence of Lebanon meant separation from
Syria.
Sa’adeh’s writings offer explanations on the
prerequisites and factors required for the
attainment and preservation of national
independence. Among these pre-requisites and
factors, the following can be enumerated:
1) The
principles of national unity and self-reliance:
Sa’adeh emphasized that "if the Syrians wish to
gain their freedom and independence as a living
nation, they should be united in the same way as
other living nations which have achieved unity.
The Syrians, moreover, should rely on their
actions, not on their words. They should rely on
their unity, not on their divisions, and
finally, they should rely on themselves, not on
others. This is the only way to attain freedom
and independence."[5]
2) The
principles of strength, resistance and national
struggle: A main theme in Sa’adeh’s writings was
his call for national struggle and for resisting
the occupiers and colonialists. He maintained
that "the nation that concedes struggle concedes
freedom, because freedom is struggle."[6]
National struggle, moreover, was seen by
Sa’adeh as a means to achieve a "powerful"
status. He argued that the great and powerful
nations were not so at their beginning. "They
achieved this by struggle and by overcoming
difficulties..."[7]
Furthermore, in an article he published
in 1921, eleven years before he founded his
party, Sa’adeh appealed to his "colonized" and
"oppressed" nation. He wrote:
The
time has come for the Syrian people to
comprehend that independence will not be
realized spontaneously, but depends on the
ability of the people to liberate themselves and
resist those who want to colonize and oppress
them...[8]
In the
same article, Sa’adeh wrote on the uselessness
of protesting to the League of Nations. This
body, he claimed, could not bring real
independence to peoples. For it represented the
interests of the victorious nations. Sa’adeh was
probably right on this count. While the people
of geographical Syria were day-dreaming about
independence following World War I, the
victorious Allied nations were agreeing at the
Paris Peace Conference to partition the area
according to their own interests, and not the
desires of the region's indigenous inhabitants.
Representatives of these Allied nations were
more concerned about advancing their interests,
power and possessions and about what areas they
could possibly control for strategic purposes as
well as for exploiting oil and other resources.
The League of Nations endorsed peace treaties
drawn up by the Allied powers. This prompted
Sa’adeh in later years to raise the question:
"...Is it right that progress should cease and
the world should freeze at the point desired by
powerful states and nations?"[9]
Three
years later, Sa’adeh wrote an article on the
Moroccan revolution against the Spanish army,
and drawing some important lessons from it. He
argued that "national struggle (al-jihad) is the
best means to secure national rights and to
attain freedom,"[10]
adding:
Independence is only achieved through the
application of effective procedures and the use
of the entire force [of the nation] regardless
of how small it is. For force is the basic
natural weapon of defence.[11]
When
Sa’adeh founded his party, he articulated his
theorization of true independence. He explained
that part of his party’s aim is "the
organization of a movement seeking the complete
independence of the Syrian nation and the
vindication of its sovereignty."[12]
Most of the basic and reform principles
of his party are concerned with the question of
independence and its significance. For example,
the fifth reform principle calls for the
application of force in its material and
intellectual spheres in order to protect the
vital interests of the Syrian nation.[13]
In this context, Sa’adeh asserted that
"force is the decisive factor by which national
rights are either affirmed or denied."[14]
Thus, he argued, "the whole Syrian nation
must be well armed and prepared."[15]
Sa’adeh’s justification for this military
preparedness was the loss of Alexandretta and
other Syrian territories. As he put it:
We
have witnessed with distress parts of our
country taken away and annexed to foreign
countries because we have lost our military
power. We are resolved not to let this state of
helplessness continue. We are determined to turn
the tide so that we may regain all our territory
and recover the sources of our strength and
vitality.[16]
The
first basic principle, "Syria is for the Syrians
and the Syrians are a complete nation," is
intended to clarify the national identity of the
Syrians and safeguard the integrity of their
homeland.[17]
"The realization of the complete
nationhood of the Syrians and the active
consciousness of this nationhood," Sa’adeh
contended, "are two essential prerequisites for
the vindication of the principle of national
sovereignty,"[18]
adding:
For,
were the Syrians not a complete nation having
the right to sovereignty and to the
establishment of an independent state, Syria
would not be for the Syrians in the full sense,
but might fall an easy prey to the intrigues of
some other sovereign power pursuing interests
conflicting with, or that might conflict with,
the interests of the Syrian people. [19]
The
second basic principle relates to the question
of independence from a legal point of view. This
principle follows from and is complementary to
the first principle. This latter, according to
Sa’adeh’s explanation, gives the Syrian nation
the right to sovereignty, whereas the second
principle specifies that the Syrian nation’s
cause belongs to her alone and is independent of
any other cause.[20]
As Sa’adeh put it:
This
principle reserves for the Syrians alone the
right to formulate their own cause and to be
their sole representatives, determine their own
interests and shape their own destiny. It
renders theirs an all-inclusive and indivisible
cause.[21]
Similarly, the seventh basic principle asserts
the spiritual independence of the Syrian nation.
"Unless the Syrian ethos is strengthened, and
unless it is freed from dominating alien
influences," Sa’adeh stressed, "the elements of
real sovereignty will be wanting and Syria will
fall short of its lofty ideals."[22]
Sa’adeh therefore invited Syrian writers
and poets to produce a literature whose topics
would be relevant to and rooted in the heart of
Syrian life. As he said to them:
Come
forward and let us create a sound literature
that has authentic roots in our history and
mentality. Come forward, that we may comprehend
ourselves and our history in the light of our
authentic outlook on life, universe and art. In
this way, we will establish a living literature
deserving to be immortal and worthy of the
appreciation of the world at large.[23]
Sa’adeh
also called on Syrian writers and poets to
employ topics pertaining to the history of the
Syrian nation and her talents and to the
philosophies of her mythologies and its
teachings. As he put it:
Come
forward to build for our nation castles of love,
wisdom, beauty, and hope by engaging topics
pertaining to the history of our Syrian nation
and her talents as well as to the philosophies
of her mythologies and teachings which deal with
major issues of human life. Come forward to
adopt an outlook on life, universe and art, in
the light of which we might be able to re-awaken
our great and beautiful self from her
slumber.[24]
Moreover, in his explanation of the seventh
basic principle, Sa’adeh declared that "in the
Syrian character are latent all science,
philosophy and art in the world."[25]
He also emphasized that Syria’s history
is full of great events that should be a source
of inspiration and a cause of pride on the part
of the Syrians. In view of this theorization,
Sa’adeh may be labeled by some as a
"chauvinistic nationalist." Suffice it to say
here that Sa’adeh’s concern was to develop among
his people a sentiment of nationality, or to use
his terms, to awaken the national consciousness
of his compatriots. Like many national
ideologues and leaders, he assumed the role of a
national educator whose main goal was to instill
in his people a sense of being a nation with a
great history, bound together and distinguished
from other groups by certain special traits and
characteristics. "National consciousness,"
Bernard Joseph wrote, "is no doubt developed and
due in some measure to the knowledge and
appreciation by the members of a nationality of
their past history and achievements." He added,
"the deeds and possessions on which the
nationality prides itself stimulate national
consciousness."[26]
Thus, Sa’adeh attached much importance to
things connected with Syrian nationality, such
as its homeland and resources, its heroes and
geniuses, its philosophies and mythologies, and
its sentiments and mentality. He spoke with
enthusiasm about Syrian cultural and political
history and expressed his pride in the
intellectual and practical contributions of the
Syrians and their cultural achievements.[27]
In
short: The idea of independence constituted a
central theme in Sa’adeh’s writings.
Independence, to him, meant the sovereignty of
the entire Syrian nation over its homeland and
resources. It concerned the national life in all
its aspects and the national will of all
Syrians.
[1]
Antun Sa’adeh, al-In’izaliyyah ‘Aflasat
(1947-1949) (Isolationism Has Gone
Bankrupt), Beirut: SSNP, 1976, p. 49.
[2]
Ibid., p. 49.
[3]
Antun Sa’adeh, Mukhtarat fi al-Mas’alah al-Lubnaniyyah
- 1936-1943 (Selected Writings on the
Lebanese Question), 1st edition, Beirut: SSNP,
1976, p. 202.
[4]
Ibid., p. 181.
[5]
Antun Sa’adeh, Marhalat ma Qabl al-Ta’sis
(1921-1932) (The Stage Prior to the
Formation [of the SSNP], Beirut: SSNP, 1975, p.
26.
[6]
Antun Sa’adeh, "Haqq al-Sira‘ Haqq al-Taqaddum"
(The Right to Struggle is the Right to
Progress), Kull Shay’, No. 107, Beirut,
15 April, 1949.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Antun Sa’adeh, Marhalat ma Qabl al-Ta’sis
(1921-1932) (The Stage Prior to the
Formation of the SSNP), op. cit., p. 16.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Ibid., 175.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Antun Sa’adeh, al-Muhadarat al-’Ashr
(The Ten Lectures), Beirut: SSNP, 1976, p. 171.
[13]
Ibid., p. 155.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Ibid.
[16]
Ibid., pp. 155-156.
[17]
Ibid., pp. 53-59.
[18]
Ibid., p. 54.
[19]
Antun Sa’adeh, al-Muhadarat al-’Ashr
(The Ten Lectures), op. cit., p. 54.
[20]
Ibid., pp. 59-62.
[21]
Ibid., p. 60.
[22]
Antun Sa’adeh, al-Muhadarat al-’Ashr
(The Ten Lectures), op. cit., p. 108.
[23]
Antun Sa’adeh, al-Sira’ al-Fikri fi al-Adab
al-Suri (The Intellectual Struggle in
Syrian Literature), Beirut: SSNP, 1960, p. 65.
[24]
Ibid.
[25]
Antun Sa’adeh, al-Muhadarat al-’Ashr
(The Ten Lectures), op. cit., p. 108.
[26]
Bernard Joseph, Nationality: Its Nature and
Problems, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
1929, p. 125.
[27]
Haytham A. Kader, The Syrian Social
Nationalist Party: Its Ideology and Early
History,1st ed., Beirut: Haytham A. Kader,
1990, pp. 50-54.
