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 This was later repealed and replaced with a Media Law in 2011, but this still placed restrictions on journalists, including that freedom of expression should be “exercised responsibly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.
03 Jan 25 | Iran, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Syria, Turkey
Three days before the start of the battle to oust Bashar al-Assad, a Syrian political figure I trust for his insights and analysis called me. With my 18 years of experience in journalism, his words carried weight to me. “The Assad era is officially over in Syria,” he declared.
Wael al-Khalidi, the leading Syrian opposition figure, told me: “We will return to Syria. Be certain that the moment the revolutionaries enter Aleppo, they will advance to every Syrian city, and Assad will fall.”
Hearing such news, and thinking about reporting it to the world, was monumental for me. It was 11pm on 7 December when the Syrian revolutionaries began entering Damascus. Personally, I was physically exhausted from days of sleepless work covering the rebels’ advances against Assad’s regime, but their proximity to Damascus gave me renewed strength.
I will never forget the historic moment when I posted on Facebook at 1.30am on 8 December: “Al-Assad has fled, Syrians!” I believe I was the first to break this news, ahead of any major media outlet in the world.
At that moment, I remembered my father, who was killed by the Syrian regime in 2012 when an airstrike hit our home. My father was an elderly, unarmed man. Overwhelmed with emotion, I wept with joy as the dictator Bashar Al-Assad fell. These feelings are indescribable, known only to Syrians who have endured 54 years of suffering under this regime, deprived of the simplest rights and subjected to all forms of killing.
In Syria, journalism was limited to writing only about the leader’s achievements. Criticism was forbidden, and one had to be a member of the Ba’ath Party to speak about accomplishments of both the party and its leader.
When the Syrian revolution began, I worked as an editor for a magazine focused on entertainment news. Frequently meeting with Syrian artists, I found myself in a real predicament: how could we praise Bashar al-Assad while innocent blood was being shed in the streets? I decided to leave journalism and work at a local food restaurant. Later, I fled Damascus for my hometown, Idlib, where I resumed journalism, documenting the violations committed by the Syrian regime and other factions during that period.
Unfortunately, at the time, the jihadist group Jabhat Al-Nusra sought to impose its control on Idlib by force. My writings criticising them openly led to my imprisonment by them. Later, they demanded I leave the country, so I fled to Turkey and continued my journalistic work.
In Turkey, journalism was relatively safe until certain restrictions began to emerge. Suddenly, I was arrested, accused of producing reports critical of Iran’s actions in Syria, with allegations that Israel was funding me. My time in Turkish prison felt absurd to both me and my defence attorney: reporting news is not espionage. The charge was collaborating with Israel against Iran in Syria: a regrettable accusation. I emphasised during my trial that I viewed Iran, Hezbollah, the Assad regime, and Israel as criminals. Eventually, I was acquitted.
Today, Syria faces a challenging phase requiring the media to play its role as the voice of people long silenced under a one-sided dictatorial narrative. We need free, independent Syrian media that competes with major global outlets. It’s not impossible.
Sadly, even weeks after the fall of the Syrian regime, there is a noticeable absence of an official Syrian media outlet addressing the Syrian audience. The country faces media chaos, where outlets and social media influencers depict events irresponsibly and unethically.
Syria needs more workshops to train journalists on professional ethics and innovative approaches, breaking away from the norms imposed for decades.
I am planning to take a significant risk: returning to Syria to launch an independent media project. This initiative aims to amplify the voices of people, addressing their concerns and struggles through a team of young Syrian men and women who believe in a free, independent Syria that respects its neighbours and the global community.
It is a big gamble, and I am fully aware of the dangers of returning to my country after a decade of absence. But with the risks, I carry dreams of finally writing freely in a liberated homeland.
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.
17 Feb 23 | News and features, Syria, Turkey
Syrian television channels have recently been showing images of president Bashar al-Assad visiting buildings damaged in last week’s earthquakes that have killed more than 40,000 people.
In the wake of a natural disaster, such demonstrations of concern and empathy with those affected are commonplace among politicians worldwide.
Yet some argue that the images on Syria’s screens are not what they seem and amount to disinformation.
Moufida Anker, a Syrian journalist and activist, said: “It is terrifying what is happening. The dictator appeared to be laughing. The most terrible thing is that he deceived the international organisations that came to support him and deluded them that the buildings in front of them were destroyed by the earthquake. Many of them were destroyed earlier by his own planes; we have proof of that with the photos archived earlier.”
Assad’s critics say he has found in this disaster an opportunity to break the international isolation that was imposed more than 10 years ago.
The earthquake has increased the oppression of Syrians in the northwest of the country that has been going on since 2011. The UN says that since the uprising, the Assad regime has killed more than 400,000 Syrian citizens for reasons related to freedom of opinion, expression, and demonstration, and hundreds of thousands are in prison for the same reason.
Syrians living in the northwest of the country, on the border with Turkey, and the hardest hit by the earthquake are being ignored and silenced.
From the first moment of the earthquake, and despite the horror of what it left behind, the Assad regime has practised a media blackout regarding news from the northwest of the country. Assad’s loyal channels do not talk about the number of victims there, which far exceeded the number of victims in the areas controlled by the Syrian government.
The media and social media in Assad-controlled areas are subject to great censorship by the Syrian government security forces, as civilians in these areas are afraid of showing any sympathy for the people in the northwest. We recently documented an arrest carried out by the regime’s security forces of a citizen from Homs who called his relatives in the north of the country to check on their health after the earthquake.
The aid donations that have flowed into the country from the UN, people in Arab nations and other countries have not been reaching those in the northwest, with many saying much of the aid has been diverted into areas controlled by the Syrian government as well as being illegally sold in Syria’s markets.
Dozens of photos have been circulated by activists in Damascus and Aleppo that appear to show influential members of the Assad regime to be involved. It is little wonder that Assad is now being called “the aid thief”.
The first earthquake, measuring 7.8 on the Richter scale, hit Syria at 4.17am on Monday 6 February. A second quake, measuring 7.5, hit nine hours later.
According to official statistics published by the volunteer Syrian Civil Defence organisation, or White Helmets as they are better known, 2,274 civilians died in north-western Syria as a result of the quakes.
In the week since the disaster, the United Nations has admitted that it has been unable to provide help to the Syrians in the northwest of the country.
The Idlib region and the area around Aleppo are home to more than five million Syrians, most of whom have been displaced after years of attacks from the Syrian army, whose mission is supposedly to protect Syrians.
Martin Griffiths, the UN’s under-secretary-general and the emergency relief coordinator, said: “We have so far failed the people in north-west Syria. They rightly feel abandoned. Looking for international help that hasn’t arrived.”
This prompted Syrian activist and journalist Muhammad Tata to set up a fund to collect donations from the afflicted to the United Nations, an ironic action intended to criticise the international body’s inability to meet the urgent calls for aid.
Many destroyed buildings have been adorned with the official flag of the United Nations, and signs placed on the rubble saying “We died…Thank you for letdown.”
After the quake, it took many days before the Syrian government approved the opening of crossings from Turkey to facilitate the entry of aid, and this at a time when the Assad regime did not even recognise the earthquake victims in Idlib and area around Aleppo – the official government death toll left out those in areas not controlled by the government. When al-Salam and al-Rahi crossings were finally opened, Assad was accused of doing so for political gain.
“They who died survived, and they who survived died” is a phrase now used by hundreds of Syrians on social media, amid wholesale grief and mourning for loved ones and friends and international impotence.
Rizik Al-Abi’s fee for this article will be given to those affected by the earthquake in Syria
