-Analysis-
BEIRUT — The images of Bashar al-Assad‘s fall bear some resemblance to the iconic scenes of Saddam Hussein’s collapse more than 20 years ago. The toppling of statues of Assad, his father, and his brother Bassel in 2024 is reminiscent of those of Saddam coming down in 2003 — likewise, the widespread burning of Assad’s pictures parallels the burning of Saddam’s.
While the contexts are vastly different — Assad’s downfall did not come on the backs of American tanks like Saddam’s — the end of Ba’ath party rule in both cases reveals striking parallels, given the profound similarities between the two Ba’athist regimes.
The Ba’ath parties in Syria and Iraq share a common origin, dating back to 1947, when Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar founded the party. As a political ideology, Ba’athism combined Arab nationalism with socialist principles and an emphasis on centralized leadership, police repression and state control of the economy. Some have compared it to the rule of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.
Eventually the Ba’ath party went on to dominate Iraq and Syria for decades, extending its influence to neighboring countries, especially Lebanon, which fell under the sway of both Ba’ath factions during its civil war.
The actual split in the party occurred in 1966, when leftist Ba’athists in Syria staged a coup against Aflaq and Bitar, ousting them and, at the same time, removing Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr and his cousin Saddam Hussein from the Iraqi branch.
Subsequently, al-Bakr and Saddam established a new Ba’athist leadership in Baghdad with Aflaq’s support, marking the definitive division into two factions: the Iraqi and Syrian Ba’ath.
From unity to tyranny
As Hazem Saghieh notes in his book The Syrian Ba’ath: A Brief History, this split symbolized and finalized the separation of two systems in independent nations. The ascent of particular social groups to power in Syria and Iraq eliminated the need for ideological claims of unity that had initially propelled them.
Neither regime ever allowed a peaceful transfer of power
The Ba’athist regimes ruled both countries with bloodshed, oppression, and fire. Their ideology produced only dictatorship and repression, as neither regime ever allowed a peaceful transfer of power.
Instead, they staged pseudo-democratic spectacles in the form of elections, where ballot boxes and voting papers existed only to announce absurd results: Hafez al-Assad and later Bashar winning by over 97%, while Saddam Hussein went so far as to claim 100% victories.
Iron grip
The Iraqi Ba’ath ruled for 35 years starting in 1968, with Saddam personally holding power for 24 years until 2003. In Syria, Ba’athist rule began with the 1963 coup, followed by a coup within the coup in February 1966.
Hafez al-Assad then seized power in his “Corrective Movement” of 1970, ruling for 30 years until his death in 2000, when power was passed to his son Bashar.
The Assad family’s grip on Syria lasted 54 years, with the heaviest of consequences for the Syrian people.
Risks of another de-Ba’athification
In both Iraq and Syria liberation from Ba’athist rule would require violent upheaval. This came in Iraq via a large-scale U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam after years of crippling economic sanctions following the Gulf War. In Syria, the struggle was much longer, beginning on March 15, 2011, and culminating in the early hours of December 8, 2024.
This date marks the definitive end of Ba’athist rule in both Iraq and Syria, with Bashar al-Assad fleeing the country. It also signals the likely demise of the Syrian Ba’ath Party’s presence in Lebanon, currently led by Ali Hejazi under Hezbollah‘s influence. This Lebanese branch, once a powerful force during Syria’s tutelage over Lebanon, now survives as a shadow of its former self.
While Iraq suffered from the disastrous “de-Ba’athification” policy implemented by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, Syria’s revolutionaries are now urged to avoid similar mistakes.
Instead, the focus should be on preserving state institutions, holding major offenders accountable, and integrating lesser Ba’athist members into a new democratic framework. The goal is to transition Syria from Ba’athist tyranny to a future of stability and freedom — a dream long deserved by the Syrian people.
