Since December 2024, Syria has been witnessing a radical transformation in the nature of the state. Syria is being reshaped into a “functional entity” that derives its legitimacy from performing specific roles within the international system, rather than from representing the will of its internal components. This shift is not merely a tactical development; it represents a dangerous re-founding of the logic of governance. It is based on what could be termed the “substitution of sources of legitimacy,” where “popular legitimacy” is replaced by “functional legitimacy” granted by regional and international powers in exchange for transborder geopolitical services.
This transformation can be understood through several theoretical points:
- The “Instrumental State” Theory: The current government in Damascus adopts the principle that survival and security are achieved through external relations (the very reason and basis for its existence) rather than through internal democratic representation. In this framework, the “geopolitical function” of the state (combating terrorism, preventing regional chaos, and satisfying those who installed it) becomes more important than the internal “social contract.”
- The Concept of “Legitimacy”: While “internal legitimacy” relies on popular acceptance and representation, “external legitimacy” is based on international recognition and functional performance within the global system. The Syrian case represents an extreme model of a state with “full” external legitimacy and “distorted” internal legitimacy.
- The “Coercive State”: Reproducing the model of the “coercive central state,” where international recognition is used as a tool to suppress internal diversity and impose forced homogeneity.
The “Grand Bargain”: A Foundational Concept
The “Grand Bargain” is a systematic strategic process to replace internal popular sovereignty with international recognition by offering external geopolitical concessions in exchange for international support to impose absolute control over the interior and eliminate any political or administrative pluralism. This concept transcends the traditional “governance for security” deal to include “swapping” the state’s political structure for international guarantees. The bargain consists of:
- External Geopolitical Concession: Relinquishing national sovereignty in foreign and security policy.
- Internal Acquisition: Obtaining international cover to exercise absolute authority internally.
- Functional Justification: Presenting oneself as a “stabilization tool” for major powers.
- Structural Elimination of Pluralism: “Uprooting” or “containing” any competing political or administrative formations.
The Three Tracks of the Grand Bargain
The authority in Damascus operates according to the logic of “conceding what is distant to possess what is near.” This principle reflects a deep exploitation of the “economy of sovereignty,” where sovereignty is treated as a divisible and tradable “resource” rather than an absolute, inalienable value.
Track One: Buying Silence through Relinquishment and Security Guarantees
What the current Damascus government is offering Israel goes far beyond the 1974 Disengagement Agreement. The concessions offered to Israel include: explicit acceptance of Israeli control over the Golan; the creation of a “functional buffer zone” in southern Syria subject to joint security monitoring (Israeli-American-local); and the final and comprehensive dismantling of the idea of conflict with Israel and the West.
This massive geopolitical concession buys Western and Arab “silence” regarding any internal military operations by the Damascus government against pluralistic components, especially in the North and Northeast.
Here, the “logic of the Grand Bargain” is clearly manifested: external sovereignty (to Turkey, America, and Israel) and the Golan are sold (the authority tells its audience: let the Golan go with its people—meaning the “Druze”), along with strategic independence and future oil and gas investment offers, to purchase absolute internal sovereignty (eliminating Autonomous Administration in the northeast, subduing Suwayda, continuing dominance over the coast, liquidating any decentralization projects, and suppressing any civil democratic movement).
Track Two: The “Safe Proxy”
The Damascus government capitalizes on “Western security obsession” regarding Islamic terrorism, presenting itself as a “pragmatic alternative” to potential chaos. The discourse presented to Washington is based on the following equation: a strong central state + strict security control = preventing the return of ISIS and Al-Qaeda + readiness for functional work beyond borders (in Iraq and Lebanon).
The great paradox in this track is that the “offered stability” is built on comprehensive suppression of pluralism, which produces an explosive “Negative Peace” rather than a sustainable “Positive Peace.” History shows that oppressive central regimes in multi-faceted societies produce continuous cycles of violence. However, the Damascus government bets that Washington prefers “short-term stability” over “long-term democracy,” a wager with historical precedents in the region.
Track Three: Investments for Loyalty
The cost of rebuilding Syria is estimated at $400-500 billion (World Bank, 2017), an astronomical figure exceeding the capacity of any single party. Damascus transforms this burden into a tradable “political asset” by distributing investment opportunities based on “political loyalty” rather than just economic feasibility: Turkish and American companies.
Conclusion
The three tracks reveal a radical philosophy—political in form, but militia-like and mafia-like in substance: sovereignty is not an absolute value, but a tradable “strategic resource.” Damascus sells “external sovereignty” (strategic independence, independent foreign policy, major national demands) to buy “absolute internal sovereignty” (comprehensive repression, elimination of pluralism, absolute despotism).
The “Grand Bargain” represents a dangerous model for establishing political legitimacy from the outside at the expense of internal representation. The state is transformed into a “functional tool” serving the interests of major powers in exchange for an absolute mandate for internal repression. This model not only threatens the future of Syria but creates a dangerous precedent in international relations, where sovereignty becomes a commodity for sale and purchase, and internal tyranny becomes an acceptable price for regional stability.
