08 Jan 25 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Syria
For more than five decades, Syria has lived under a repressive regime that has made freedom of expression a distant dream. Under Bashar al-Assad, expression was curtailed by repressive laws and strict censorship, while the security services were used as a tool to silence dissenting voices. With the Syrian revolution in 2011, a new age of free expression seemed to be emerging, but it quickly collided with security, political, and social challenges. Now that the Assad regime has been overthrown, what does this mean for the future of free expression in the country?
Freedom of expression under Assad
There were many forces at play within Assad’s regime that were used to silence those critical of the government and stop dissent.
The first were repressive laws. Throughout the decades of the Assad family’s rule, laws were designed to serve the security services and ensure the political domination of society.
The emergency law, which remained in place from 1963 to 2011, gave the security services unlimited powers to prosecute dissidents and protesters and restrict freedoms. Assad lifted the law following Syria’s Arab Spring protests, though opposition politicians called this move “useless” without reform of the legal system and accountability for security services. The 2001 Publications Law, which tightly censored the press, banned the emergence of any independent media voices. This was later repealed and replaced with a Media Law in 2011, but this still placed restrictions on journalists, including that freedom of expression should be “exercised responsibly and with consideration”. More recently, the cybercrime law in 2022 was used to silence dissenting voices online, and has made public criticism of the regime a crime punishable by imprisonment.
In this context, writer, dissident and former political detainee Fayez Sarah told Index: “The policies of the Assad regime pushed me and many activists to confront [them], as muzzling voices and preventing political and civil activities motivated me to engage in political and social work.” Sarah said he had been arrested several times simply for participating in opposition political activities.
The second tool used was that of the “official” media, which became the regime’s only voice. The official media was focused on perpetuating the public image of Assad’s regime, and presenting his version of events without space for other opinions. All mass media TV channels and newspapers were under direct control of the state, which ensured the promotion of the regime’s ideology and the obscuration of truth.
Journalist and writer Ali Safar recalled that while working for a state media organisation, creativity was rejected, and security reports suppressed any attempt to deviate from the official line.
The third oppressive weapon was direct repression against activists and journalists. Syria is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists, having witnessed unprecedented levels of violence towards media workers over the past few years. According to Reporters Without Borders, Syria has lagged behind in the Global Press Freedom Index, consistently ranking amongst the 10 worst countries since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution in 2011.
Under the Assad regime, journalists were subjected to arbitrary arrests, torture, and enforced disappearances. In areas of armed opposition, despite there being space for independent media, journalists have also been threatened and kidnapped by some factions who saw media coverage as a threat to their interests.
As journalist Sakhr Idris told Index: “Even in liberated areas, journalists faced challenges such as the intervention of military factions and pressure from funders or local communities.”
At least 300 journalists were killed whilst covering the civil war, whilst others lived in exile or under constant threat. Thousands of people have been threatened, arrested and forcibly disappeared. Muhannad Omar has been forcibly disappeared since 2012. His fate is currently unknown but there are fears that he was tortured and killed in detention in prison.
The Impact of the Syrian revolution on freedom of expression
With the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, social media platforms began to play a crucial role in breaking the regime’s monopoly on the media.
Activists have used platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to convey the truth to the world, and expose the regime’s abuses.
Citizen media began to emerge as an alternative to official media, with on-the-ground journalists relying on simple technology to circulate coverage of demonstrations and violations.
But despite a promising start, freedom of expression has faced numerous challenges as the conflict morphed into an all-out war. The regime’s repression continued in new forms, including through digital smear campaigns and intensive surveillance.
In areas outside of the regime’s control, armed factions also began to impose their own visions, limiting press freedom.
The takeover of the Syrian State Television building
After the fall of the Syrian regime on 8 December, concerns emerged about the future of the official media as new forces started to dominate the media landscape. One such case was the takeover of the Syrian State Television building in Damascus, raising widespread concern that the official media could turn from a tool to serve the regime into a platform that promotes the vision of dominant rebel groups.
For example, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group which led the deposition of Assad, is known for its directed political and religious rhetoric, and may use state television to spread its ideology and strengthen its influence over public opinion in Syria.
The move also raises questions about the fate of free and pluralistic media in a post-Assad Syria, especially with the country’s record of restricting press freedom, suppressing independent journalists, and directing the media to serve its political and religious goals.
There is also a risk that media domination will be used to expand repression, leaving Syria stuck in the cycle of media tyranny under different names and parties.
These concerns highlight the greater challenge of ensuring the independence of the official media in this transitional period and putting in place laws to protect it from political or ideological influences that may divert it from its true role as a platform for all Syrians.
Future challenges to freedom of expression after Assad
One major obstacle is the absence of an existing legal and constitutional framework to protect free expression.
Ali Safar, a Syrian writer and executive producer of Radio Sout Raya, a Syrian radio station based in Istanbul, believes that “the only guarantee of freedom of expression is a sophisticated and dynamic media law that revitalises public space”.
Another challenge is existing societal conflict; the war has left deep sectarian divisions that have affected public debate and discourse.
According to Sheikh Riad Drar al-Hamood, a Syrian opposition political activist, writer and human rights activist, the traditional religious community has not helped to build an environment that respects pluralism, but rather has supported authoritarianism under the umbrella of traditional law.
However, he says the role of religious groups will be significant in future, and forward-thinking individuals within them can “form an incubator for the new society”. “The enlightened voices among the clergy can be leaders of social liberation, but unfortunately they are few,” he said. For instance, Sheikh Muhammad Rateb al-Nabulsi and the late Sheikh Jawdat Saeed were supporters of moderate thought in Syria, and called for change by peaceful means. Their influence combined to promote the values of dialogue and tolerance, which made them distinguished voices in the face of tyranny and extremism.
International actors will also have a key role to play in establishing a pluralistic media. Supporting Syria’s democratic transition depends heavily on international support, which is conditional on political reforms. A transition is needed that draws on the experiences of other countries to avoid media and political chaos.
The role of civil society organisations and activists within Syria will also be crucial. Civil society is a key hope for building a free space. According to Fayez Sarah, political and civil activism has contributed to changing the relationship between Syrians and the regime, as they have become more emboldened in expressing their opinions.
But challenges remain significant, including security threats and the stress of living under threat of prosecution.
Comparing Syria with other global experiences
The state of free expression in Syria can be compared to the experiences of other countries such as Iran and Chechnya, where societies have faced similar pressures around the suppression of dissenting voices and the use of religious or national authority to tighten control.
Even before Iran’s 1979 revolution, freedom of expression was limited under the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, where the press and civil society were censored, and the SAVAK (the Bureau for Intelligence and Security of the State) was used to muzzle voices. While Iranians dreamed of the right to free expression after the revolution, repression has shifted in character from political to ideological.
The new Islamic regime imposed tight control on the media, as obedience to Wali al-Faqih – a doctrine that means the transfer of political and religious authority over to the Shia clergy – became a criterion for the legitimacy of media and intellectual discourse.
Although dissenting voices have emerged from within the religious establishment – such as Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri – they have been marginalised and suppressed, which is consistent with Sheikh al-Hamood’s assertion that enlightened voices in religious communities often have little impact.
Similarly to Syria, in Iran religion or nationality has been used officially to justify restricting freedoms and turning the media into a tool for official propaganda.
In Chechnya, freedom of expression has been heavily affected by armed conflicts and wars between the Russian government and separatist movements.
During the First (1994-1996) and Second (1999-2009) Chechen Wars, independent journalism was virtually wiped out. Russian authorities and local groups have used the media as a propaganda weapon against the opposition, reminiscent of the Syrian regime’s control over the media during and after the revolution.
In the post-conflict era, freedom of expression remained limited under the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov. Independent journalists were imprisoned and political activity was suppressed. As in Syria, armed conflicts have weakened the free media and have led to the authorities’ exploitation of nationalism and religion to justify repression.
In Iran, Chechnya and Syria, freedom of expression has been affected by volatile political phases and armed conflicts. Free expression was the first casualty of repressive regimes that used religion or nationalism as a pretext for control.
Global experiences continue to offer useful lessons for Syria in the future, as they can be leveraged to build a free media system that respects pluralism and promotes national reconciliation.
Looking to the future
The journey of freedom of expression in Syria is a reflection of the stages that the country has gone through politically and socially, from systematic repression under Assad, to limited openness during the revolution, to successive setbacks as the conflict escalated. There are many challenges to building an environment that incubates free expression post-Assad, from the need for a constitution that protects the right to confront sectarian discourse, to rebuilding trust between the media and society. But despite this, there is still hope that Syria could become a model for free expression within the region.
This article was translated and edited from Arabic by Hussein Maamo.
13 Dec 24 | News and features, Newsletters, Syria
Hello, readers. This week, the world watched in shock as Bashar al-Assad’s government was toppled by Syrian rebels, bringing the dictator’s 24-year-reign to a close and suddenly ending the country’s brutal 13-year civil war. He and his family have since fled, and allegedly claimed asylum in Russia.
One of the defining legacies of Assad’s ruthless regime were his inhumane prisons, where many political activists, journalists and protesters have been held. According to the UK-based monitoring group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, nearly 60,000 people were tortured and killed in these jails. As news broke of the collapse of Assad’s government on 8 December, videos emerged of the Syrian rebel forces, led by the militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), freeing people from the notorious Saydnaya prison, which had frequently been referred to as a “human slaughterhouse”. Many more people are thought to still be trapped in hidden underground cells.
Assad’s regime has been one of the most repressive for free speech in the world today. It became more violent and restrictive following the 2011 Arab Spring, when Syrians took to the streets to peacefully protest the government. A major crackdown on freedom of assembly followed, with political activists being detained and tortured, and civilians being targeted with artillery and internationally banned substances such as chemical weapons.
Journalists were imprisoned, tortured, killed and forcibly disappeared. Reporters Without Borders reports that 283 journalists have been killed in Syria since 2011, with 181 of these at the hands of Assad and his allies. On the day his regime fell, 23 journalists were reported to be in prison and another 10 missing. The human rights organisation ranked Syria a woeful 179 out of 180 countries in its latest World Press Freedom Index.
During his reign, Assad had increasingly introduced laws that curbed free speech. Following the uprising, a media law in 2011 had the guise of protecting independent journalism but in reality further restricted journalists’ reporting, legislating that free expression should be “practised with responsibility and awareness”, and prohibiting journalists from reporting on certain topics such as national security, the activities of the army and religious issues. A broad sweeping counter-terrorism law then came in in 2012, which further allowed the state to criminalise peaceful acts of dissent, and a cybercrime law in 2022 imposed six-month jail sentences for Syrian citizens who spread disinformation or “false news” undermining the state’s reputation.
One of the country’s most prominent political activists is Mazen Darwish. A journalist and lawyer, he founded the NGO Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Speech in Damascus in 2004, and was himself charged under the counter-terrorism act. He, alongside other members of his organisation, was arrested during an intelligence service raid in 2012, and he was subsequently imprisoned until 2015. In an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit, he recalled the torture methods used in prison: electric shocks, suspending detainees by their hands, beatings and sleep deprivation. Following the fall of the regime this week, he tweeted: “For the first time in 50 years, I feel like a citizen.”
Assad’s ruthless reign is over, but the restoration of free speech and broader human rights will not be plain sailing from here. The rebel groups that have overthrown Assad have also been accused of human rights abuses. Of the 283 journalists killed in Syria since 2011, HTS is thought to have killed six journalists, whilst the group’s leader Abu Mohammed al-Joulani is allegedly responsible for the abduction of eight journalists, according to Reporters Without Borders. This is not to mention deaths of media workers at the hands of radical groups like the Islamic State, which reportedly assassinated 22 journalists in Syria between 2013 and 2017. Meanwhile, Kurdish reporters have been killed in airstrikes, which Kurdish media have attributed to the Turkish military.
Concerns also remain for the treatment of minorities such as Kurds, Assyrians and Alawites in the country following Assad’s demise. Whilst the rebels who overthrew Assad have promised tolerance and say they want to build a unified, inclusive Syria, a non-secular government or the emergence of militant factions could see further persecution of ethnic and religious minority groups, as happened in Iraq following the deposition of Saddam Hussein.
For the majority of Syrians, this week is a huge cause of celebration as political prisoners are freed and many of those who were exiled are able to return safely home. Hopefully, the violent repression of free speech in Syria will be over. But questions remain over whether the future leaders of Syria will restore human rights for all, and only time will tell.
22 Aug 24 | Media Freedom, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Syria
Media freedom has been slowly dying in Syria since the Arab Spring, suffocated by a lack of regular funding and poor governance.
The rise of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party and Hafez al-Assad’s coup in 1970 led to state dominance over all its institutions, resulting in a media monopoly that supports the regime. State television and several official daily newspapers have controlled the media landscape for over 41 years.
A rare exception was the launch of the online news service Kulluna Shuraka (We Are All Partners) as a volunteer project in 2003. In 2006, the service expanded thanks to donations from Syrian figures, businessmen, and some grants.
The outbreak of popular protests in Syria in March 2011 resulted in a rare improvement in the country’s media landscape with a rash of alternative local newspapers such as Ain Al-Madina, Tamaddun, Kulluna Suriyun, Zaytun, Souriatna and Enab Baladi emerging, primarily funded by donations and financial support from international organisations.
The emergence of a range of non-state-controlled media and journalism sources allowed Syrians for the first time in decades to access news that the Assad regime sought to obscure and prevent from being broadcast.
That media freedom has been short-lived.
Over the past eight years, the Syrian media landscape has seen the closure of most of these independent media outlets due to a lack of funding – of those outlets listed above, only Enab Baladi continues to publish regularly, supported by many individual donations.
Kulluna Shuraka’s financial situation began to worsen in 2016, forcing the website to become volunteer-run again. The site ultimately closed in 2018, although its social media channels continue to be run by volunteers.
Ayman Abdel Nour, the former director of the Kulluna Shuraka website, points out that external funding entities in Europe, the USA and Canada usually provide support under explicit contracts, meaning that funding can often be withdrawn at short notice. In a conversation with the Monitoring Fund, Abdel Nour explained that some funders give just a month’s notice of funding ceasing and even just 24 hours in some cases. This has left many Syrian media outlets in difficult circumstances, with journalists suddenly finding themselves out of work despite ongoing financial commitments.
The newspaper Kulluna Suriyun which translates as We Are All Syrians faced a similar shortfall in funding. It was initially launched through individual donations and support from a fundraising entity of the same name. The funding stopped when this entity demanded that the newspaper act as its official spokesperson, according to journalist Hussein Bru, who managed it for several years. Later, Kulluna Suriyun received funding from a Danish organisation to cover printing costs and some expenses; this support was limited and focused on printing and salaries for some journalists in Turkey and Syria.
Bru noted that work continued for a long time with several colleagues working without payment. The highest fee he ever received was 450 euros. The newspaper ceased publication in 2018 due to a lack of financial support after it transitioned from a bi-monthly publication to a monthly magazine, a reality that many Syrian media outlets experienced as they faced similar challenges.
Syrian journalist and activist Alaa Muhammad says the drying-up of funding forces institutions to reduce their staff dramatically which results in a large number of journalists being made redundant at one time, affecting organisations’ ability to produce high-quality journalistic reports with accurate information, even if operations continue and they do not close their doors.
Muhammad believes this is a source of anxiety for many, as they live in a state of financial instability and constant worry about the future, which impacts their performance and their capacity for innovation and development. “This loss of funding might push institutions to seek alternative funding sources, which could be tied to specific agendas, making them operate according to these agendas instead of leveraging their independence,” she says.
This also has a psychological impact, she continues, as journalists face immense pressure to fulfil their duties amid resource shortages and job instability, negatively affecting their mental health.
Many workers at the closed media outlets received no financial compensation when they were made redundant and were subject to arbitrary dismissal. Several confirmed to Index that there are outstanding salaries that remain unpaid.
Journalist Khaled Abdel Rahman, who worked for a respected Syrian media institution, recounted that upon the closure of the institution, he was denied payment exceeding $1600. Abdel Rahman says many of his colleagues share the same plight.
Media activist Anas previously worked for Al-Jisr TV, which broadcast from Turkey for many years. When the channel was closed, the team was informed in advance and compensated for their years of service, but this is a rare occurrence in the Syrian media landscape.
Syrian journalist Rodi Hassou has also seen a noticeable decline in the number and quality of independent media projects and is worried about the loss of these critical voices.
Hassou believes that these media outlets represented fundamental pillars of the Syrian revolution and channels of communication between the international community and Syrians.
“The cessation of funding was not merely a financial loss; it was also a loss of the voices that reflect the realities and analyses of the revolution, serving to document history for future generations,” he says.
The closure of Orient TV and the Kulluna Shuraka website signified the loss of important voices that conveyed the suffering of Syrians. He says, “These outlets witnessed and participated in narrating the story of the Syrian people’s struggle against oppression, courageously covering the events of the revolution from the very beginning. ”
Hassou considers the loss of these outlets as a turning point in the Syrian media landscape, where the voice of the Syrian people has become increasingly faint.
19 Jul 24 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Syria
On a summer evening in June 2000, the Syrian official television channel interrupted its regular broadcast and announced the death of the country’s then President Hafez al-Assad.
The screen turned black, declaring a 40-day official mourning period, during which television viewers were subjected to programmes about the accomplishments and heroism of the deceased president.
News was all but suppressed for weeks. Added to that, it later became clear that the president had been dead for some time before it was even reported on TV.
Mohamad Mansour, editor-in-chief of the al Arabi al Qadeem website and a former employee of Syrian television said: “We must remember the state of confusion and caution that prevailed at that time. Media workers hesitated until they received orders to announce the death; I even remember one department head at the television channel presenting a film about animals, leading to his dismissal as the authorities considered it an insult to Assad.”
Delaying the announcement of disasters, misfortunes, and deaths had been the standard approach by the Syrian regime for decades, but when Assad’s son Bashar replaced his father that changed: the rapid dissemination of news, even about people in government inner circles, became the norm.
And now, it’s changing again. Controlling when and how news is released is increasingly becoming the norm and some are suggesting this is an ominous sign of growing Russian influence in state affairs.
The latest sign of this was when the president’s closest adviser, Mrs Luna Al-Shibil, was involved in a car accident. She died from her injuries a few days later. While the Syrian independent media waited only a few hours to announce the accident involving Al-Shibil, it was days later before her death was officially confirmed by the government.
Journalist and activist Mostafa Al-Nuaimi believes that the Syrian regime today is resorting to a policy of denial just as it did in the past.
He told Index, “With the presence of social media and the presence of international intersections and multiple decision-making circles within its state, it sometimes has to disclose information that does not align with the mentality with which it governs the country. ”
Al-Nuaimi, who has closely followed the Arab Spring revolutions, believes that this all heralds a new phase of “eliminations” within the regime’s institutions is coming, driven by foreign influence.
He said the regime’s tactics in dealing with these eliminations will not change. “This is through denial in the first phase, followed by disseminating information through parallel media outlets, and then the official announcement through official media outlets. This is what happened with Luna Al-Shibil.”
As rumours circulate about the cause of Al-Shibil’s death, Al-Nuaimi says there were “claims she was sending information about the issue of the Iranian militias in Syria and its implications on the Syrian regime, and based on that, she was removed and completely dismissed.”
Syrian journalist Ahmad Primo, director of the Verify fact-checking platform, said, “I do not want to delve into the cause of death or illness because that is a separate discussion, especially since the regime has a long history in this regard.”
Primo did not notice any particular delay in announcing her death, regardless of its causes.
Primo said, “the announcement was quick, even if indirect, through the Presidency’s account on X.” However, no such announcement was made on official state television.
Announcements about the health of the President’s wife Asma also seem to have changed, perhaps to take the focus away from the eliminations. London-born Asma was diagnosed with leukaemia in May this year, following a successful recovery from breast cancer discovered in 2018.
Primo said, “The regime’s media machinery has taken a direct announcement approach since the start of military intervention [in Ukraine], especially given Russia’s involvement in all [Syrian] state details”.
He added: “I will not delve into the topic of conspiracy but I believe the regime seeks to gain credibility for what it publishes by pre-empting other media outlets.”
There is also the matter of the news that is never announced. Primo says that there is a lot of news about senior figures that is not officially announced but only becomes known to the media through leaks.
After nine years of Russian military intervention in Syria, observers believe that President Putin has achieved a large part of his goals. He has an effective strategic and military presence on the shores of the Mediterranean (huge Russian military bases have been built there), and President Bashar al-Assad has become a supporter of his war in Ukraine even if that support is only in the media.
In a recent television interview, the Syrian president expressed his confidence that Russia would “emerge victorious” from the conflict in Ukraine and would once again “unite the two brotherly peoples”.
Egyptian journalist Hossam Al-Wakeel, editor-in-chief of fact-checking website Tafnied, said: “The official discourse is a fundamental means by which governments deliver information and form perceptions and concepts among the public and the different parties associated with the state.”
He added: “The official discourse must be responsible and transparent, but reality often does not align with this for many governments.”
He continued: “In the Syrian case…this pattern, if it has changed, should be linked to the political process managed by the regime at present, and the evolving nature of its relations and negotiations with the international community and with Russia.”
The delay or otherwise in making announcements by the regime is about political management and appeasing allies.
“There are potential gains [to be had] from accelerating the announcement of crises or disasters,” says Al-Wakeel, who says that Bashar al-Assad will be considering the internal situation as well as changes in the level of international engagement with the Syrian issue in light of the war in Ukraine and the war in Palestine to explore how best to take advantage.
As Russia consolidates its military grip on the country, its grip on the media appears to be tightening too.
