Chapter 10, Part 4: Al-Shishakli's First Coup and the 1950 Constitution

Section Three
The Coup of Adib al-Shishakli and the 1950 Constitution

At this stage of the work we were surprised by Communiqué no. 1, issued by Colonel Adib al-Shishakli on 19 December 1949, which said:

"It has been established to the army that the chief of the general staff, Major General Sami al-Hinnawi, his brother-in-law Mr. As'ad Talas and some professional politicians in the country are conspiring against the safety of the army and the existence of the country and its republican system, with certain foreign parties.. So the army has been compelled to remove these conspirators.

It has no other aim. It declares that it leaves affairs in the hands of the country's lawful men, and will not interfere at all in political matters, unless the safety and existence of the country require it."

The putschists explained their move by saying that they were confining themselves to taking control of the army, and were leaving the Constituent Assembly and the civilian government, each to its own tasks, without any interference in their affairs.

Akram al-Hourani, who had become Minister of Defense in al-Azm's government, said: "What the army has done has spared the country a catastrophe that nearly brought it down.

Major General al-Hinnawi was conspiring against the system of government in the country and against its independence under foreign influence, and he is also accused of issuing orders to kill a number of officers.[1] And I know of shameful things." He made this speech in the Chamber of Deputies after Khalid al-Azm's cabinet was formed.

Rushdi al-Kikhya answered him, saying:

"Three days after the Constituent Assembly met, the latest incident took place, and Major General al-Hinnawi was arrested and sent to prison. Were the acts he is charged with committed in these three days? For between the speech in which he was thanked and praised and his arrest there were only three days.. I ask the Minister of Defense, who says there are shameful things he knows of, to disclose what he has and inform the Chamber of all he knows.. so that everyone may know who is conspiring against the safety of the country and who is the traitor to his homeland."

Major General al-Hinnawi was taken out of the military prison and deported to Lebanon on 19/12/1949. There, while he was waiting for a public bus in a street in Beirut, a relative of Dr. Muhsin al-Barazi fired on him and killed him. The Lebanese government formed a judicial council to try the killer, and it sentenced him to death, with the sentence commuted by majority to 18 years' hard labor, and compensation of 25 thousand Lebanese pounds to the heirs of the murdered man. Our colleagues in the People's Party, Dr. Rizqallah Antaki and Rizqallah Salim, represented the civil party, the al-Hinnawi family, in this case.[2]

The founding deputies, freely elected by the people, found that it would not be wise to leave the country facing the unknown, and they decided to go on drafting the constitution despite their stupor and frustration at seeing some adventurers among the army commanders dragging the armed forces into tasks that were no part of military duty.. and throwing the country into an abyss of unknown depth and destiny..

Hashim al-Atassi preferred to remain in his post as head of state, hoping to limit the putschists' misconduct. Chaos crept into the system of government, and the situation became very bad. In public al-Shishakli and his aides affirmed that they did not interfere in the running of the state. But in secret they pressured the government with every kind of interference. One day they would accept this government, and a short while later they would remove it, sometimes gently and sometimes not. Nothing was easier for them than to brandish the threat of a coup.

I should point out that the number of governments formed and then resigned or dismissed between al-Shishakli's coup against the army on 19 December 1949 and his seizure of civilian power on 1 December 1951 was seven: three formed by Nazim al-Qudsi, two formed by Khalid al-Azm, one formed by Hasan al-Hakim, and the last, in which the fire broke out or which lit it, the cabinet of Maarouf al-Dawalibi, most of whose members, along with some party men from outside it, ended up in Mezzeh Prison. It was one of the gloomiest stages of our history.

It is noteworthy that on the morrow of the coup against the armed forces the President of the Republic charged Nazim al-Qudsi with forming a government. After long contacts he formed it on 24 December 1949 with a People's Party majority, Muhammad al-Mubarak (for the Muslim Brotherhood) and two independents, Zaki al-Khatib and Mahmud al-Azm.

But this cabinet did not please the putschists, so they pulled the rug from under its feet, and al-Qudsi resigned after only three days.

The President of the Republic charged Khalid al-Azm, the candidate of the armed forces, with forming the government, hoping to calm the atmosphere.

He formed it on 17 December 1949, and three People's Party ministers joined it, Faydi al-Atassi (Justice), Hani al-Siba'i (Education) and Maarouf al-Dawalibi (Economy), on their personal responsibility; that is, they did not officially represent the party, but the party accepted their joining to save the deteriorating general situation.

Akram al-Hourani joined it as Minister of National Defense. But he soon resigned from the government on the pretext of objecting to certain articles of the constitution, and his resignation weakened the government greatly.

The party charged me with delivering its statement at the session of the vote of confidence in the government. It said: "The People's Party, having studied the political situation thoroughly and comprehensively from every angle, and having taken into account the internal and external dangers that might result from the withdrawal of its members taking part in the cabinet on their personal responsibility, or from withholding its confidence from it, has decided to grant confidence to the government out of concern for the higher interest of the homeland."[3]

Under this cabinet the three powers, America, England and France, which found the opportunity open to them after the Arab defeats in confronting Israel, moved and issued the famous "Tripartite Declaration", in which they said:

"That they are committed to keeping the peace on the Palestinian frontiers, and so they declare their absolute opposition to the use of force or the threat of it between any of the states of the region, and make the supply of arms conditional on non-aggression".

Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel accepted this declaration. The Syrian government accepted it too.

This acceptance was interpreted as implicit recognition of the security of the Israeli frontiers.

A great political storm arose against this declaration, because the three powers that had volunteered to issue it without consulting the states of the region were the chief conspirators in the establishment of Israel and the humiliation of the Arab nation, unable to defend its holy places.

Sheikh Dr. Maarouf al-Dawalibi issued his famous statement, which caused a great stir on the political scene. Here are its main points:

"I declare in my personal capacity, not in my capacity as a minister in the government, that if American pressure on the Arabs continues, to make them follow a policy that can only end in threatening the rest of the sons of the Arab nation, I propose that a referendum be held in the Arab world, so that everyone may know whether the Arabs would prefer a thousand times to become a Soviet republic rather than be a prey for the Jews."[4]

And Sheikh Dr. Mustafa al-Siba'i, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said:

"When was the West ever our friend? We will ally ourselves with Russia even if it were the devil."

In fact the whole world was living in the fever of a nuclear war that was impossible except within a small margin of error, and if it happened the Soviet Union and the United States would destroy each other, and no fewer than two hundred million people would die on both sides, in addition to the annihilation of factories and of the pillars of modern civilization.. perhaps for many generations..

America was close to us, but understanding with it was impossible. It wanted to strengthen Israel, which it had helped more than anyone else to create, wanted to preserve it, and wanted us to accept its painful reality.. It did everything it could to impose an American-Israeli peace on the region, sometimes by enticement, sometimes by threats, and at other times by coups.

And it kept waving before us the "danger" of world communism.

It did not want to understand that our problem was with Zionism and not with communism. At home we were neither capitalists nor communists. We were a nation in the middle between the two camps, not wanting to side with one or the other, because what concerned us was saving our rights and our safety.

The Soviet Union stretched out its hand to us more than once, perhaps out of hatred of the other camp, but it asked for no ideological footholds in return for this friendship.

So we accepted its military and economic aid.

In this spirit the People's Party issued a statement on 3 April 1950, saying: "The country's interest requires it to emerge from its political and economic isolation and to strengthen its relations with the outside world, provided that the relations established with other states rest on sound foundations that safeguard Syria's interests and protect its independence". Khalid al-Azm resigned because of a disagreement within al-Shishakli's own group. It is said that al-Shishakli telephoned him at night from Latakia and asked him to submit his resignation in the morning "to correct the situation", and he submitted it on 29/5/1950, because he had no choice but to comply.

The President of the Republic charged Nazim al-Qudsi (for the second time) with forming the cabinet, and he formed it on 4 June 1950 from some members of the People's Party (Shakir al-As, George Shalhub, Farhan al-Jandali and Rashad Barmada) and the independents Hasan Jabbara and Zaki al-Khatib. Brigadier Fawzi Selu also joined it, and Fawzi Selu exercised a veto over decisions al-Shishakli did not like, as though he were one of the states of the UN Security Council with the right of veto.

By way of digression, I should point out that the Arab people, in Syria especially, did not accept the principle of military alliances; most politicians opposed them, and stormy demonstrations broke out against them.. so much so that the Council of Arab Foreign Ministers was forced in January 1954 to adopt a resolution that no Arab state might join a foreign military alliance.

Abdel Nasser personally also played an influential part in the adoption of this resolution. Dr. al-Qudsi's cabinet made strenuous efforts to establish an Arab cooperation that would make foreign military alliances unnecessary. Rushdi al-Kikhya encouraged the government to keep firmly to this national course. The bureau of the People's Party decided to support the government in its efforts, until the treaty of "Arab Collective Security" was concluded in the political committee, which held its decisive meeting on 17 June 1950, and the Arab League approved it. The preamble of this agreement said:

"The signatory states, desiring to strengthen the bonds and consolidate cooperation among the states of the Arab League, anxious for their independence and to preserve their common heritage, and responding to the wish of their peoples to close ranks to achieve the joint defense of their existence.. and to establish stability and security and provide the means of prosperity and development in their countries, have agreed to conclude a treaty to this end..

Article One: "The contracting states, anxious for the permanence of security and peace, affirm their resolve to settle all their international disputes by peaceful means".

Article Two: "The contracting states consider any armed aggression against any one or more of them, or against their forces, as aggression against them all. Therefore, in exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense of their existence, they undertake to go at once to the aid of the state attacked, individually and collectively, and to use all measures and all the means at their disposal, including the use of armed force, to repel the aggression and to restore security and peace".

Article Five: "A permanent military committee shall be formed from representatives of the general staffs of the armies of the contracting states to organize plans for joint defense. The competence of this permanent committee shall be defined in the annex to this treaty".

Article Six: "Under the supervision of the Council of the League, a Joint Defense Council shall be formed, competent in all matters relating to the implementation of the provisions of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5, and shall be assisted in this by the military committee".

Article Eight: "An economic council shall be established to provide security and prosperity in the Arab countries".

A military annex was attached to this treaty, defining the competence of the military committee, for which Cairo was chosen as headquarters, and setting out the method of choosing the commander-in-chief of the joint forces.

The general constitutional committee held its first meeting on 27 February 1950, after Dr. al-Qudsi had returned to its chairmanship following the resignation of his first government, and decided to record its debates in minutes to be printed and distributed to the members of the Constituent Assembly.

It held 29 meetings for a first reading of the articles of the draft, the last of them on 10 April 1950. The debate was then repeated in a second reading over six sessions. After that the chairman of the committee submitted a report to the president of the Constituent Assembly, Rushdi al-Kikhya, setting out the main lines of the constitution, and attached the draft constitution to it. As rapporteur, I too submitted a detailed report.

The Constituent Assembly debated the articles of the constitution closely and at length, with useful and rich contributions. At the end of the debates the Constituent Assembly approved the first national constitution drawn up in the era of independence. The Assembly's President, al-Kikhya, promulgated it on 5 September 1950.

Al-Kikhya did not forget to give the constitutional committee his generous thanks for its good efforts. And the President of the Republic, God have mercy on him, honored me on this memorable occasion by awarding me the Syrian Order of Merit of the Excellent Class.

The Chamber chose me as chairman of the General Laws Committee, which was entrusted with coordinating the legislation in force and bringing it into line with the provisions of the new constitution. This constitution is distinguished as a new departure in the world of Arab constitutional legislation, with its precise definition of the powers of the President of the Republic, its guarantee of the independence of the judiciary, and its statement of the tasks of the armed forces, which must be confined to defending the homeland (Article 30, paragraph 3).

It showed its frankly Arab face, providing "that the Syrian people is part of the Arab nation" (Article 1, paragraph 3).

Regrettably, this provision affirming the country's Arab belonging disturbed those who feared for Syrian identity, because they discovered in it a call to renew the pursuit of union with Iraq.. I do not know how they arrived at this "great" discovery.. but it was sickness, or self-interest, or currying favor with others. Among those who assessed the new constitution was Gordon H. Torrey, who said:

"What is new in this constitution lies in the spirit of the document itself. Great emphasis was placed on the rights of the Syrian citizen, and the preamble stressed the individual's right to justice and personal freedom, because public freedoms are the highest embodiment of the meaning of human personality and dignity".

He noted that the constitution was drawn up to free citizens from the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance by establishing an economic and social order that would achieve social justice, protect the worker and the peasant, and give security to the weak and the fearful.

In 21 of its articles the constitution contained legal guarantees on preventive detention, the presumption of innocence, the inviolability of the home and freedom of opinion and of the press.

Article 21 can be considered a revolutionary article, because it provided that "private property is inviolable on condition that it performs its social function.. provided that no one shall be allowed to use private property in a way that conflicts with public property.."[5]

The constitution established free primary and secondary education (Article 28).

But I would like to mention that Rushdi al-Kikhya deserves great credit for his direct intervention in securing the adoption of two provisions that nearly caused a crisis in the country from which there was no way out:

The first: the question of the religion of the state.

The second: the question of limiting agricultural landholding.

As for the question of the religion of the state, it nearly caused civil strife in the country. Opinion on it was divided into two hard-line camps: one held that the Muslims were the great majority in the country and had the right to frame the constitution according to the interest they saw, provided that the rights of the members of the religious minority were safeguarded and their beliefs and the practice of their rites, in the way they chose, were preserved; the other saw no legal benefit or political interest in this provision, because the state is a legal person, and religion belongs to a man or a woman, not to a person that exists only on paper. Besides, stating the religion of the state in the constitution could arouse fear among the religious minorities with whom we have lived side by side for fifteen centuries. We also have in the lands of emigration, especially in South and North America, about half a million citizens, most of them Christians. So why should we lay down a provision that would disturb them and make them question their identity, at a time when Israeli propaganda was recruiting everyone in whom it saw some use for its own interest, and dividing the ranks of the Arabs into Muslims and Christians?

Many delegations came to see me from all over the country, in my capacity as rapporteur of the constitutional committee. I explained the situation to Rushdi al-Kikhya and what might come of the growing friction.. He made wide contacts across the various tendencies and came out with a good solution that everyone accepted, namely the text of Article Three of the constitution. It provided that the religion of the head of state is Islam, that Islamic jurisprudence is the main source of legislation, and that freedom of belief is inviolable. The state respects all the heavenly religions and guarantees the freedom to perform all their rites, provided this does not disturb public order. And Article Twenty-Eight provided that education "must aim to create a generation strong in body and mind, believing in God, adorned with virtuous morals, proud of the Arab heritage.. Any education contrary to these aims is prohibited".

Here I must mention that we owe the text of this Article 28 to the late Sheikh Mustafa al-Siba'i, who understood Islam in its spirit and not merely in its letter. He was an accomplished jurist and not a rigid one.

In this way Rushdi al-Kikhya saved a tense situation in thoroughly unfavorable circumstances. I was convinced that a provision on the religion of the state did the Muslims no good, and that its harm at the time was certain.. The fanatics set about waging an unjust campaign against me, calling me things I am not.. merely because I stood for the unity of national ranks and did not cling to a provision that was no more than a matter of form. My imagination takes me, as I look again at this provision now (around the year 2000), to the barbaric massacres committed by the Serb (Orthodox) killers against the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they demanded their right to a state in their own country after the collapse of the Yugoslav federation. And strangest of all, the Muslims are driven from their homes, their sanctities violated and they are killed without mercy.. while the world hears the news of them and no conscience stirs and no pity is moved, as though the injustice they suffer were happening on Mars.. And the strange thing is that they still pin the charge of fanaticism on Islam, under whose wing the followers of different religions have lived side by side for fourteen centuries.. The consciences of people of conscience could no longer bear the atrocities of the Serbs, and the Western states sent their president warning after warning, but he refused and was arrogant, so the Western states were forced to strike him without mercy; their armies crossed the frontiers and saved the Muslims from his clutches. And the displaced returned to their homes.

As for the second question, it was the question of limiting agricultural landholding.. Al-Kikhya worked with all his strength and faith to secure the adoption of the principle in Article 22, without this provision having retroactive effect.. It was a great gain in principle.

In this way he remained faithful to his conviction.. and saved the Constituent Assembly from friction that could have opened the door wide to every possibility.

After the constitution was adopted, the Constituent Assembly decided to turn itself into a Chamber of Deputies to complete its four years, which is the term of parliaments under the provisions of the new constitution.

Endnotes:

[1] We heard of no one being killed in that period, officers or others, apart from Brigadier Husni al-Za'im and Dr. Muhsin al-Barazi, as we related in the previous section. We have established that al-Hinnawi was innocent of their killing; indeed he raged at those who killed them and threatened to kill himself if the violence did not stop. And he did stop it.

[2] See the details of the trial in Frederick Zurayk's book "al-Arab fi Nazar al-Gharb" (The Arabs in the Eyes of the West), Damascus 1952, p. 213.

[3] The text of the party's statement is in the minutes of the session of 7/1/1950, p. 103.

[4] Quoted from the Damascus newspaper al-Ayyam, issue of 5 April 1950.

[5] From Gordon H. Torrey, p. 186, "Analysis of the 1950 Constitution".