Chapter 7, Part 2: Clean Government, Shahbandar's Murder and Kikhya's Break with the Bloc

5. Rushdi al-Kikhya was very keen on the cleanness of the national government, and he had memorable rounds in this field.. of which I give the following:

A. 41 deputies submitted to the Chamber a bill exempting "the poor farmers" from the arrears of taxes owed by them for the years 1928 to 1934, on the grounds of poor harvests.. a tune we would hear later from them and from their closest allies. Rushdi could not bear this plunder dressed in the cloak of legislation and the headband of the popular will, and he stood up to his colleagues, crying out:[1]

"I am very surprised that forty-one deputies of this nation should submit a request to write off the arrears carried over from previous years, when you all know the difficult situation the nation is going through and the heavy burdens resting on the government, and when you know that all these arrears have been collected from the poor peasant and nothing of them is left on him, because the whips of the gendarmes used to sear his back and the tax collectors ruled him as a master rules his slave, seizing the goods of his house and selling them at public auction. So the people who will benefit from this write-off, if the Chamber approves it, are those who in the past term enjoyed the nation's money and monopolized all its good things. I therefore propose that the Chamber reject this request, to protect the nation's money and to teach a lesson to the likes of those who devour the money of the poor and enjoy the fruits of their toil.."

He was supported in this stand by his colleague the deputy for Aleppo, Abd al-Qadir al-Sarmini, who said:

"A number of deputies of the previous Chamber were in debt to the state, and they passed a decision writing off the debts they owed."

B. The Chamber of Deputies approved the formation of a "legislative committee" of specialists in legislation to help the government modernize the laws and enact the new laws the state needed at the stage of organizing independent public life. Al-Kikhya was greatly pleased with this committee, believing that the laws it would draw up would set the country on the road of progress and free it from legislation that could no longer keep pace with the development of other peoples.

The committee began its work by examining the government's work. The Prime Minister, Jamil Mardam, flared up against it and demanded that its role be confined to remaining a mere advisory committee, that is, he wanted to deprive it of the initiative to identify the country's needs.. That was not a useful arrangement.

Anyone who reads the record of the sixth session of 2 November 1937 will find that none of the deputies accepted that this committee, whose members received good fees (on top of the salaries of its members, of whom Dr. al-Ajlani was one), had been set up merely to honor its members; the aim, rather, was to set the wheel of legislative progress turning and to draw up laws in keeping with the needs of the age.

Al-Kikhya's criticism of the Prime Minister was stinging, because he had resisted the committee's work and feared it would take its task further than he liked for the position of the ruling class.

Here is an expressive passage from his speech at that session:

"If the task of the legislative committee is confined, in the government's understanding, to advice only, then I propose that it be abolished, because the benefit hoped for from it is not being achieved. If we agreed to its formation in the last session, we did so in order to prepare new laws and regulations for which the state has nothing similar. But the government amended its proposals and recast them in another mold, so that their essential value was lost.. So we ask the government to give this committee a free hand and leave it to do its work, to draw up the laws needed and meet the needs of the people. And if its work is to be confined to advice alone, then we ask that it be done away with and that the large sum it receives be saved and left to the nation, which needs it.. Our people are poor and cannot pay money without getting some benefit from it."[2]

C. A group of deputies saw the need to raise the salaries of junior officials, and submitted a bill to that end. But merely proposing a law does not take the place of its substance.. for the thorny problem with a bill involving expenditure lies in finding a source of revenue sufficient to cover that expenditure.

The deputies' views on what this source should be conflicted. The deputy for Damascus, Fakhri al-Barudi, proposed raising the tithe taken on agricultural produce. But the farming deputies opposed this proposal strongly, and Rushdi al-Kikhya, who was in fact one of them, took them on and blamed them for this opposition, saying:

"The farmer's tax, the tithe, has in practice fallen to a third of its value since the fall of the French franc (to which the Syrian currency was then tied), so this increase is fair, because it is meant to rescue the official from his plight, and besides it is not an excessive increase. I say this frankly before the farmers whom I represent and before those who are not farmers. And I know that what will be added to the tax is not something that calls for complaint and wailing."

It should be noted that the amount of the tax increase was only about 250 thousand pounds. Fakhri al-Barudi proposed raising this sum from a lottery the state would hold among the citizens.. Rushdi al-Kikhya scorned this frivolity and insisted on raising the agricultural tax, and called on the Chamber "to distribute taxes in the country fairly and to get rid of the worn-out financial systems".[3]

He took a dig at the deputy Najib al-Barazi, a big landowner who was enthusiastic about raising salaries but did not want the tax raised, addressing him thus:

"If you want to raise the salaries of junior officials and refuse to raise the taxes on agriculture, where will you get the money?"[4]

D. Throughout this term Rushdi al-Kikhya remained loyal to the government of the national era, defending it with all his strength. For he saw it as the hope to which the country clung for rescuing its rights from the claws of the Mandate, and he feared it would weaken or crack.

At the vote of confidence the government put to the Chamber, al-Kikhya spoke for himself and on behalf of "the organization of the Iron Shirts and the Red Cloaks", assuring the government of his support:

"The confidence you ask for today, the people gave you long ago, but we will renew it for you today on behalf of the nation. And as a deputy for Aleppo, the city that returned its deputies unopposed, I say to you in my own name and in the name of the Iron Shirts and the Red Cloaks: we support you and are at your command."

When a deputy made insinuations against a member of the government, al-Kikhya defended him, saying:

"Our Chamber gave the government the right to issue legislative decrees. We trust our honorable government completely and share with it the great responsibilities and the great works it has undertaken to carry out."[5]

He often appealed to the opposition in the Chamber to understand the country's situation and not to be harsh in its stands against the government, so as not to weaken it at home and before the French. One of these appeals was his speech at the session of 16 January 1939, in which he said: "I ask that the opposition not be against this government and against the National Bloc and against the Chamber of Deputies, especially as this Chamber has proved its sincerity and true patriotism."[6]

But this loyalty to the leaders who were governing the country in order to bring it to the paradise of freedom and independence began to waver as the days went by.

The National Bloc had failed to make France ratify the Syrian-French treaty, and so its political basis in government, namely wresting independence and ending the disgrace of the Mandate, was shaken.

Even so, its men went on regarding themselves as entitled to run and represent the country, and they could not abide anyone who criticized them or opposed their monopoly of power. Here is Saadallah al-Jabiri, the Prime Minister, whose patriotism and clean hands were acknowledged, accusing the opponents of treason. Professor Nasuh Babil quotes him as saying:

"Boycott the traitor and stone him.. And be sure that there are no parties in the country other than the National Bloc. The interest of the homeland requires that every partisanship be resisted, and every act that might disturb this constructive role."[7]

Some researchers hold that the rise of an opposition to the National Bloc began with the conclusion of the Syrian-French treaty of 1936. Some politicians, headed by Dr. Abd al-Rahman Shahbandar and Munir al-Ajlani, found in this treaty a surrender of the country's rights and demanded that it be abandoned, which led the men of the National Bloc to attack them violently. This violence spread a fierce hatred of the opponents in some circles of the people, one result of which was the assassination of Dr. Shahbandar in his clinic on 7 July 1940.

For the record, I would say that Dr. Abd al-Rahman Shahbandar took part in the revolt of 1925. When the French crushed it he left the country and settled in Egypt, but he returned to Damascus in 1938 and began notable political activity with a number of politicians who were angry at Jamil Mardam's policy.

The finger of accusation pointed at the men of the National Bloc.. But when they were tried before a Judicial Council (that is, an extraordinary criminal court) presided over by a French judge, with a French judge and three Syrian judges as members, the Bloc men (who had fled) Saadallah al-Jabiri, Lutfi al-Haffar and Jamil Mardam were acquitted, five defendants were sentenced to death and four to hard labor.. and the death sentences were carried out as passed.[8]

The question still weighs on consciences: who was behind the assassination of Dr. Shahbandar? I put this question, at one of the evening gatherings we used to hold weekly, to some of the judges of those days. That was on 1/11/1992.. and none of them could say anything with certainty..

Judge Nasuh al-Ayyubi said that he had been an assistant to the public prosecutor. He went to where the body lay and began the preliminary investigation.. but the public prosecutor advised him to keep away from "this dirty case".

Judge Abd al-Jawad al-Sarmini said that he had attended the defendants' trial as an ordinary member of the public.. His attention was caught by the presence of Sheikh Makki al-Kattani among the spectators, and he noticed how much influence he had over all the defendants, who remained composed.

Judge Majid al-Ghazzi said that the first person charged with investigating the case was the investigating judge Vladimir Saba (one of the Syrian judges), a man of good reputation, but he was taken off it and it was handed to a French judge named Couitot, who was also said to be honest.

No one gave a definite opinion about the instigators.. especially as regards the men of the National Bloc.. But what was said was that the defendants were religious men who followed al-Kattani's lessons and were influenced by him.. and that they may have held against Shahbandar his views on religion, published in his book "Sociology", which he taught at the law institute.

Those present who had been Shahbandar's students at that law institute, however, insisted that there was nothing in these views to offend the feelings of Muslims.. they are views familiar in social studies.

So, and this was the view of most of them, the party that stood to gain was the French, who made a great gain for themselves from the assassination: setting the Syrians against one another and spreading the fires of strife in the country.

Nor were the hands of British intelligence clean either.. and it is more skillful than French intelligence.

The question remains: who killed Shahbandar?

The most likely hypothesis is that the killers were religious men, and it is not at all reasonable that they had links with a foreign party that directly instructed them to kill, so that they would agree to disobey God's command.. and incur His anger and severe punishment in this world.

So there must have been a party that exploited this feeling, and they were the victims of its malice! This party is the missing link in this crime.

It must be said, however, that in the Second World War Shahbandar stood with France and England, explaining his stand "because they are democracies", and gave a series of speeches in support of their effort. In one of his speeches he said: "If democracy is unbelief", then I am an unbeliever. "And it is well known that people's feelings were, on the whole," with Germany, because of its hostility to the two colonial powers.

On top of that, Shahbandar openly called for Muslim women to unveil.

These two stands were exploited against him in the ugliest way.[9]

Mr. As'ad al-Kourani holds that the National Bloc began to break apart because its men monopolized power and because of the opposition of Dr. Shahbandar, "who began to work with people with many doubtful things in their past".[10]

Disagreement also crept into the ranks of the National Bloc's leaders themselves. Jamil Mardam, Prime Minister at that point of national rule, began to act on his own, against the views of his brothers. The Syrian government was negotiating with the French over taking over the institutions France ran in Syria, and the Minister of Finance, the late Shukri al-Quwatli, was busy negotiating with them over taking over the Syrian bank, so as to make it the nucleus of the future central bank. But he went on the pilgrimage before completing this agreement. At that point the Prime Minister, Jamil Mardam, became active and hastened to resume the negotiations as acting Minister of Finance during the absence of the minister proper, and agreed to the annexes of the treaty concerning the takeover of the Syrian bank, contrary to what the minister proper had recommended. When al-Quwatli returned and learned what had been done in his absence, and that what Mardam had done was harmful to Syria's interest, he resigned from the government and stayed at home, claiming that he had resigned for health reasons so as not to weaken the national ranks. This resignation was a painful blow to the national ranks, because it deepened a split among the men of the National Bloc, news of which had begun to spread among the people.

On the news of corrupt and exploitative conduct attributed to some of the national leaders, we cite what was said by some of those who wrote about that period, among them men who were in the front rank of the Bloc's national work.

Dr. Abd al-Rahman al-Kayyali, Minister of Education in that cabinet, wrote the following:

"Jamil Mardam insisted on going to Paris alone, on the pretext of working to persuade the French to ratify the treaty. But the President of the Republic (Hashim al-Atassi) refused to agree to this journey. Lutfi al-Haffar complained a great deal about Jamil Mardam's actions. When Jamil Mardam approved the amended annexes of the treaty while in Paris, the President was angry with him, accused him of treason, and asked the National Bloc to dismiss the cabinet."

And Shukri al-Quwatli hastened to resign.[11]

To block the Prime Minister's course of action, the Chamber of Deputies took a decision which said:

"The Chamber of Deputies holds fast to the Syrian-French treaty that Syria has ratified. If the French parliament has the right to refuse alliance with Syria, it has no right to deny it its natural right to independence, recognized for it in the very Covenant of the League of Nations. The Chamber of Deputies records the statement of the Prime Minister, Mr. Jamil Mardam Bey, that he considers himself released from all the agreements and contracts he may have signed, and regards them as null."[12]

This was a painful decision, but the matter for which it was taken deserved this slap.

Yusuf al-Hakim wrote:

"Some of the men in power, they and their relatives, made fortunes from the duties of their posts that drew attention to them."[13]

The late Nasuh Babil, the doyen of the press in those days and owner of the well-known newspaper al-Ayyam, wrote the following:

"The Syrian government threw the door of public employment wide open. It began appointing relatives and supporters without regard to their qualifications or their fitness for the posts entrusted to them, and so it aroused the ambitions of educated young men, who began to plot against the regime."[14]

Hasan al-Hakim, a former Prime Minister, accused the men of the national era of having "followed a blind partisan policy and foolish conduct, which stamped the era with monopoly, chaos, exploitation and the gratifying of appetites", and also accused them of resorting, in the later period of independence, to reactionary methods and ideas based on family ties, favoritism, capitalism and feudalism.[15]

Dr. Dhuqan Qarqut wrote still more harshly and severely about the corruption of the government.[16]

Jamil Mardam's government was forced to resign under the pressure of popular demonstrations. The President of the Republic asked Mr. Lutfi al-Haffar to form a new government, but he did not succeed.. So the President resigned, and Monsieur Puaux, the High Commissioner, formed the government of directors by Decision 145 L.R. of 8 July 1939. And so this round of national government ended with the French taking the reins of power directly into their hands. The outbreak of the Second World War helped them to keep things that way. It is not my purpose to put the men of the National Bloc on trial for the opportunities that came and that they failed to make good use of, because the ill will of the French government played the largest part in the failure of the national role. Even so, they bear a large share of the blame for their bad conduct.

Despite his disciplined conduct and his commitment to the National Bloc, Rushdi al-Kikhya repeatedly warned the men in power against departing from the accepted rules in running the affairs of the state, but they were in one valley and their advisers in another.

It once happened that the students of Damascus demonstrated against the government, which lost patience with them and set its policemen on them, together with some "toughs" (qabadayat), who beat them and arrested a number of them until they forced them to disperse.

Rushdi al-Kikhya did not let this painful occasion pass without sounding the alarm, and said to the government in the chamber of the Chamber of Deputies:

"The students of Damascus wanted to go out in a demonstration through its streets to protest against the instability of politics in the country and against the non-ratification of the treaty. The police confronted them, accompanied by some unofficial persons with their sticks and knives, and attacked them, beat them and seriously wounded some of them.. This is an act that anyone with an ounce of patriotism condemns, because the students are our children and the object of our trust and pride, and they bore prisons and insults in the days of passive resistance.. The first thing the government must do is punish the attackers and the policemen who accompanied them."[17]

He even opposed a decision taken by the President of the Republic himself to send a bill back to the Chamber of Deputies for reconsideration. This is a constitutional right of the President.

The bill, which the Chamber had approved, taxed stone buildings (prevalent in Aleppo, for example) and mud buildings (found in the other cities and in Aleppo itself) at the same rate. The President's view was that a higher rate of tax should be imposed on houses built of stone. Al-Kikhya, however, saw this distinction as harmful to equality among citizens, since the tax was assessed on the monetary value of the property. Some deputies accused him of regionalism, and he said: "I rise above the level to which some descend in stirring up the sectarian and regional prejudices that still eat like woodworm at the body of this nation, and I insist on my request that the Chamber pass the law it approved before, because it is right and fair."[18]

Party considerations did not stop him from siding with justice and the public interest and standing up to the President of the Republic, who was president of the National Bloc and the shining symbol of the struggle to win back the national rights.

That is how free men act when their noble convictions rest on the foundations of justice. To express his displeasure at the course of government, which had begun to stray from the straight path, and his conviction that any attempt to correct it was no longer of any use, Rushdi al-Kikhya took his final decision, which he announced at an enlarged meeting of the leaders of the National Bloc held in the middle of 1939 in the village of Qudsaya (next to Dummar, near Damascus): his withdrawal from the National Bloc.

This decision fell on the heads of those present like a thunderbolt, and urgent attempts were made to dissuade him, but Rushdi al-Kikhya is not one of those men who take fateful decisions lightly or under the sway of emotion, so neither mediation nor veiled and open threats had any effect on him.

His friend and companion on the road, Dr. Nazim al-Qudsi, resigned with him, together with some other members.

Dr. al-Qudsi was an educated young man who had returned from Switzerland with a doctorate in law. He came from the Aleppine aristocracy, but he was influenced by what he had learned and seen in the lands of the West, and concluded that the social situation in the country could not make its progress and development easy in a world that was far ahead of us, and that this class disparity, a leftover of the Middle Ages, had to be ended.

He expressed these convictions frankly, saying in his memoirs recorded on tape:

"I was against family-based politics and against tribalism. Ibrahim Hananu congratulated me on this conduct of mine and said to me: Thank you, for you have opened new ground by giving up clannishness and tribalism."

Rushdi al-Kikhya did not end his political activity, but the Second World War, which broke out in September 1939, narrowed the scope for open activity. He and his friend al-Qudsi, however, turned to building popular foundations on which they would rely in the near future.

Endnotes:

[1] Session of 30 May 1937, p. 1059.

[2] Session of 2 November 1937, p. 112.

[3] Session of 24 May 1938, p. 313.

[4] Session of 31 May 1938, p. 446.

[5] Session of 30 May 1937, p. 990.

[6] P. 155 of the minutes.

[7] Nasuh Babil, Sahafa wa Siyasa (Journalism and Politics), p. 122 ff.

[8] See the details of this crime in Professor Babil's book mentioned above, pp. 122-142. Professor Babil was a moderate supporter of Shahbandar.

[9] For a fuller study of Shahbandar's views and the killers' motives, see the book by Dr. Abd Allah Hanna, Abd al-Rahman al-Shahbandar, al-Ahali Press, Damascus 1989.
See also the book by Dr. Salma Mardam Bey, which she called "Awraq Jamil Mardam Bey" (The Papers of Jamil Mardam Bey), her father, Beirut 1994, p. 103 ff.
The author of the papers all but lays the blame on "the exploitation of religious fanaticism", p. 107.

[10] In his study of Rushdi al-Kikhya, p. 3. It is a 30-page manuscript, a copy of which was given to me.

[11] Al-Marahil, vol. 4, p. 440.

[12] 31 December 1938, p. 292.

[13] Memoirs, vol. 4, p. 440.

[14] In his book Sahafa wa Siyasa (Journalism and Politics), p. 18.

[15] In his book Khibrati fi al-Hukm (My Experiences in Government), published in 1978, p. 93.

[16] In his book Tatawwur al-Haraka al-Wataniyya fi Suriya 1920-1939 (The Development of the National Movement in Syria 1920-1939), p. 175.

[17] Session of 14 January 1939, p. 138.

[18] Session of 24 May 1938, p. 313.