Chapter 8, Part 7: The Question of Public Freedoms

Section Four
The Question of Public Freedoms

In devoting this section, I mean to set out Rushdi al-Kikhya's positions on:

Freedom of the press.

Freedom to form parties.

And the reform of the electoral system.

1. Freedom of the Press

Rushdi al-Kikhya believed in freedom of the press and in the freedom to express opinions in it, because it is the basic pillar of every sound democratic government.

To set the press free, threatened as it was by prior censorship and by the sword of administrative suspension with which the government was armed, he and a number of deputies submitted a proposal to abolish prior censorship of newspapers, so that they could write what they saw as being in the country's interest, on their own responsibility. If they wronged individuals or the national interest, the penal code would call them to account for their offenses.

The general Press Law, issued by Legislative Decree no. 53 of 8 November 1949, had not yet been issued, because it was issued under the government of President Hashim al-Atassi, which was formed immediately after Sami al-Hinnawi's coup and by his decision. Rushdi al-Kikhya was Minister of the Interior and Nazim al-Qudsi Minister of Foreign Affairs. I was a member of the committee that drafted it, under the chairmanship of Adil al-Azma, Minister of State, and with the participation of Michel Aflaq, Minister of Education.

I remember that the meetings this committee held came to more than fifteen over a period of three months. Michel Aflaq did not contribute a single word, neither against nor in favor. He would sit with a cigarette in his mouth and his gaze fixed on the ceiling until al-Azma declared the meeting closed.. and then he would get up and leave!

For the higher interest, al-Kikhya accepted.. keeping prior censorship on "military matters and internal security".[1]

In the same proposal he also called for the abolition of the President of the Republic's right to suspend a newspaper administratively, on the government's proposal, for a period of up to a week (amending Decision 194 L.R. issued on 30 August 1939).

The proposal was crowned with success and became law on 24 April 1945, and so the country enjoyed the taste of press freedom for the first time in its history.

Regrettably, some newspapers did not understand the national meaning of this freedom, and abused it.

2. Freedom to Form Parties

Al-Kikhya's thinking always turned on the idea that this country could not advance unless several parties arose in it, subject to the democratic system and carrying on their political activity with all the freedoms the constitution allows, so that it could achieve the free alternation of power.

The constitution issued by the French High Commissioner in 1930 provided in Article 16 that "freedom of thought is guaranteed. Everyone has the right to express his thought in speech, writing, oratory and pictures within the limits of the law", and Article 25 provided for "the freedom to found associations and hold meetings within the conditions laid down by law".

There were several political parties in the country, but they were small or banned (the Communist Party), so they had no influence worth mentioning on the political life of the country.

Rushdi al-Kikhya often called for the establishment of political parties with well-studied programs on which to fight general elections.[2]

He was not convinced by the parties then on the scene. When he debated the statement of Faris al-Khouri's second government, which Mikhail Ilyan joined as Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 26/8/1945, and its supporters claimed that it was a party cabinet, he denied it that description and asked, with a touch of sarcasm:

"What is the color of this government? Is it really a party government? And where are the real parties? Yes, there are parties in the Chamber, but they are improvised parties, and they do not deserve to be called parties."[3]

The question of forming a political party on democratic foundations, that is, one with a well-studied program looking after the national, economic and social affairs of the country, stayed with him, until God granted him success some years later in forming the People's Party on the principles he had been calling for.

We shall return at length to this party and its principles.

In that period the Baath Party and the National Party were formed. And so the country came to have a party life.

3. The Question of Making General Elections Single-Stage

For the sake of historical truth, I would like to state that a number of free deputies, among them Rushdi al-Kikhya and Nazim al-Qudsi, wrested from the claws of reaction the holding of general elections in a single stage, after they had been in two stages under the worn-out system laid down by the men of the French mandate, which no one had stepped forward to abolish.

Rushdi al-Kikhya hated the laws the French had laid down for us, and wished they would be abolished. He once expressed this by saying:

"These laws are the object of the nation's anger. I have heard from some of those returning from Europe that General de Gaulle abolished with a single stroke of the pen all the laws of the German occupation. So why do we not abolish everything the French laid down for us? And especially the infamous election law?"

He declared his support for the government of Faris al-Khouri on condition that it fulfilled what it had undertaken: to safeguard the constitution, protect freedoms, lay down a compulsory military service law and enact a new law for general elections, "which we long for with all our hearts, so that the nation can send to this hall those who truly represent it and safeguard its hopes in the fullest way.. We may have a chance in the coming elections looming on the horizon, and we may not.

But we will not stand as a stumbling block in the way of the nation's development and progress. Rather, we want it to be given full freedom, so that the rising generation can exercise its right to vote freely and boldly, and the nation can send to this hall those who truly represent the hopes of the people and defend them with integrity and sincerity.. These conditions are met only in the educated, learned class.

But this class cannot come to this hall unless the election law is amended."[4]

In the important sessions devoted to studying the new election law, which began with the session of 28 April 1947,[5] a number of liberal deputies, among them Akram al-Hourani, Hani al-Siba'i and Raif al-Mulqi, spoke on the need to make the elections single-stage.

What made it easier to approve the single stage was that the government had adopted it during the talks that preceded its formation, and it kept its promise to al-Kikhya and his brothers.. In this way it eased the approval of this radical amendment. With its approval al-Kikhya's dream came true, and his intuition proved right that this amendment would overturn the balance of social forces in the country and open the doors of the Chamber of Deputies to the sons of the people. That is what happened in the elections of 1947.

It is worth mentioning that he opposed raising the number of deputies from 124 to 150 in the coming term, on the basis of the results of the census held that year. In his view "what counts is quality, not quantity, and raising the number neither helps nor hinders, but burdens the treasury with unnecessary expense".

As for the seat of the religious minorities, he said: "I am not one of those who begrudge the various communities an extra number of seats.. But I do not like us to show favoritism and give a right to someone who does not deserve it, because we are here to uphold what is right and raise the banner of justice.. So the claim that one of these communities has struggled and fought, and has thereby earned a special privilege, must be rejected, because all the communities have struggled and fought, and those who struggle are usually doing their duty and deserve no reward for doing it."[6]

Here he was referring to a seat granted to Mr. Mikhail Ilyan that he did not deserve, because of the small number of members of his community in Aleppo, the Greek Orthodox community.

The number of Muslim deputies in Aleppo, where Muslims were the overwhelming majority, was seven, whereas the number of Christian deputies was eight, although they were a minority whose numbers at the time did not exceed a quarter of the number of Muslims.[7]

It was the French High Commissioner who had issued the decision creating these privileges, to cause a rift in national solidarity whenever the majority demanded that a just balance be established and that privileges not justified by any national interest be abolished.

I would like to digress a little and say a brief word about the "minorities" in our country.

The word minorities has two meanings:

The first: an ethnic meaning. It refers to Muslim citizens descended from non-Arab origins, whom some hardliners describe as "ethnic minorities".

This is a concept truly alien to the Islamic religion, which regards every Muslim as a "citizen", regardless of any national or ethnic belonging.. and it treats these "citizens" of its with absolute equality.. in their enjoyment of all rights and their subjection to all duties.

So the Kurd, the Circassian, whoever was of Armenian origin and embraced Islam, and the Greek Muslim.. are, in the eyes of Islam, people of the Abode of Islam.. Most of the Islamic schools of law accept their appointment to every office of the state and to the command of armies, including the office of the Caliphate.

Imam al-Sarakhsi defined the Abode of Islam as "the places that are in the hands of the Muslims, the sign of which is that Muslims are safe in them".[8]

Among the moderns, Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf defined it as "the abode in which the rulings of Islam apply and in which people are safe under the protection of the Muslims, whether they are Muslims or dhimmis".[9]

Facing the Abode of Islam stands the Abode of War, the lands over which the Muslims have no authority, that is, those in which "power belongs to the people of unbelief and the Muslims have no compact with them", as the Zaydis define it.

The second meaning of the word minorities is a religious one, referring to non-Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, who live in the Abode of Islam. In principle the inhabitants of the Abode of Islam are Muslims. But a community of non-Muslims may live there, and these are the "dhimmis", or the people of the dhimma.

Accordingly, the people of the dhimma are "the Christians, Jews and others bound by covenant who reside in the Abode of Islam". It makes no difference whether the dhimma, or the covenant given to them, is permanent or temporary. The jurists interpreted the dhimma as a guarantee of safety. Hence it can be given to the Magians too, by the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: "Treat them as you treat the People of the Book".

Islamic law affirmed that the people of the dhimma enjoy, as a general rule, all the rights of Muslims, in the protection of their lives, property and honor and in the practice of their religious rites. And the Prophet ﷺ enjoined good treatment of them, saying: "Whoever harms a dhimmi has harmed me".

They also have the right to be appointed to public office, except for certain limited posts. Al-Kasani reports the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: "If they accept the compact of the dhimma, then they have what the Muslims have, and owe what the Muslims owe".[10]

The jurists consider the office of the Caliphate an exception, because the Caliph is the imam of the Muslims and must therefore be a Muslim, and likewise the office of commander of the jihad.[11]

But in our day the heads of republics no longer have a religious character, so dhimmis have the right to take part in electing presidents and members of councils, and to stand as candidates for membership of these councils as well. This right is not harmed if the constitution provides, for example, that the President of the Republic must be a Muslim, because that is a personal condition and does not deprive the followers of other religions of their electoral rights. The Christian deputies in the Chamber of Deputies take part in electing the Muslim President of the Republic, just as the Muslim deputies do.

Because of local political conditions, and indeed as a matter of course, the Syrian constitution of 1950 required the President of the Republic to be a Muslim (Article 3), and the 1973 constitution followed the same path (also Article 3).

In the West there are many states that regard the head of state as the protector of the church institutions.

It should be noted that the constitution treats all citizens with absolute equality in rights and duties, apart from the exception concerning the religion of the President of the Republic.

This is the view of Michel Aflaq,[12] when he wrote:

"When we call for economic equality and equal opportunity, we mean that we have handed the country over to its true people, the individuals of the nation, with no difference between Muslim and Christian, Arab, Kurd and Berber."

What is striking, however, is that al-Kikhya stood firmly in favor of reserving a parliamentary seat for Faris al-Khouri, "in view of the respect, reverence and esteem our great leader enjoys".

Al-Kikhya and al-Qudsi approved the general election law, but they expressed reservations about the exceptional seats.

To secure the integrity of the general elections, for which the country had won a new law thanks to the firmness and lofty principles of the free deputies, al-Kikhya insisted that deterrent penalties be applied to officials who interfered in the conduct of the elections to tip the balance in favor of one group against another. In his speech on this subject he said:

"These officials do not fear God and have no regard for the sanctity of the nation; they consider themselves mounts and servants of certain groups. If they remain in their posts, this will lead to consequences of the worst kind among the sons of the one country."[13] That is, he did not rejoice at merely winning the text, but showed his concern that the texts be properly applied, so that they would not become a plaything and a mockery in the hands of the slaves of power.

Endnotes:

[1] Session of 14 April 1945, and especially his important speech at the session of 28 April 1945, p. 147.

[2] Session of 18 May 1944, p. 196, and session of 9 April 1945, p. 94.

[3] Session of 28 August 1945, p. 61.

[4] Session of 31 December 1946, p. 235.

[5] Third legislature, eighth ordinary term, fifth session.

[6] The same session referred to above (28 April 1947).

[7] Session of 4 May 1947, p. 150, and session of 10 May 1947.

[8] Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir, vol. 3, p. 81.

[9] In his book "al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya" (Islamic Governance), p. 69. The Ibadi definition is close to this one.

[10] In al-Bada'i', vol. 7, p. 100.

[11] Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, p. 33; and al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya by Abu Ya'la, p. 3. For a fuller study of the rulings on dhimmis and those granted safe conduct, see the book by Dr. Abd al-Karim Zaydan, second edition, Beirut 1988.

[12] In his book Fi Sabil al-Baath (For the Sake of the Baath).

[13] Session of 12 May 1947, p. 206.