It is very common to have hope when looking at a revolution that destroys—or at least seeks to destroy—the status quo of an authoritarian state.
In the early hours of December 8, 2024, the flight SYR9218 left from Damascus. Its destination was unknow and one of its passengers was Bashar Al-Assad.
Bashar Al-Assad's escape from his country marked the end of a dark chapter in Syrian history. This chapter, which began in 2011, will (and should) be remembered for the torture, imprisonment of political opponents, war, hunger, and destruction of entire cities.
The hero of the story? Ahmed al-Sharaa, widely known by his nom de guerre: Abu Mohammed al-Jolani[1]. Where was his nom de guerre created and in what war was it used? Al-Sharaa fought in Iraq and Syria as a member of Al-Qaeda. This glorious and holy revolution is led by a former member of Al-Qaeda. One dark chapter of Syrian history ends and another—the one that generates hope and awakens the passions of the people—starts in the hands, and by the hands, of a former Al-Qaeda member. If that is not enough to generate some kind of skepticism and eventually even cynicism...
Even if, momentarily, we forget the past affiliations of the leader of the revolution—who has already become leader of the country—, we will, nevertheless, end up falling into the pit of skepticism by simply confronting the results of various revolutions that have elicited optimism in the international community. The destruction of authoritarianism is admirable, but it is useless, and even counterproductive, if we do not think about the day after the revolution.
Besides concrete skepticism and cynicism regarding this revolution, I do not lack (and by the end of this article, if I succeed, you will not lack) skepticism and cynicism in abstractum,, que a mera ideia de “revolução do bem” é capaz de gerar em mim.
Slavoj Žižek, when talking about revolutions, frequently says that he would be willing to sell his own mother as a slave if that meant he would be able watch V for Vendetta: Part II.[2] The movie V for Vendetta[3], from 2005, as I assume my reader knows, depicts a dystopic scenario very similar to the one portrayed by Orwell, in his magnum opus: 1984At the very end of the movie,[4], vemos, no final, uma revolução na qual toda a população assume a identidade de Guy Fawkes (no filme, “V”) e participa na destruição do sistema distópico e totalitário vigente.
The question underlying the cynical commentary of Žižek is such skepticism born of the simple study of history. The question, which I have already anticipated, is not about the success of the revolution in order to merely destroy the status quo. The real question is, "What then?" What if the revolution works at first? In general, either the revolution fails initially and does not even end the system, or fails because it cannot adequately supply the void generated by its success. In the second case, a vacuum of power is created that ends up being filled by more totalitarian forces than those initially in power, betraying the revolutionary ideals assumed initially.
Unfortunately, history gives us countless examples that confirm this idea. The so-called Arab Spring, for example, was a disaster. In Egypt, the instability generated after the end of Mubarak's government was sufficient for Sisi to take power. The latter proved unquestionably more authoritarian than the former. In Yemen, the result of the revolution was the strengthening of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. With the exception of Tunisia, the failure of the Arab Spring (which with the results achieved has a tragically ironic name) was painfully felt in all the countries that participated in it (in addition to those mentioned, Libya, Syria itself, Iraq, Bahrain...). A little skepticism is more than justifiable. It's necessary.
In addition to all these questions, here we have a more methodological problem: to tell a story that has just ended and another that has just begun.
Hegel, in the penultimate paragraph of his book's foreword, Principles of Philosophy of Law[5]—which should be a mandatory reading for all legal experts and so-called lawyers—, write[6]:
(...) philosophy, at any rate, always eat too late (...). As the thought of the world, it appears only at a time when relevance has gone through its formal process and attached its complete state. (...) When philosophy paints its grey in grey, a shape of life has grown old, and it not be rejuvenated, but only recognized, by the grey in grey of philosophy; the owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the onset of dusk.[7]
Briefly (perhaps overly summarized, but this is what the nature of these texts imposes), it is only possible to analyze an event, a phenomenon or an idea when it becomes past. The Owl of Minerva—symbol of wisdom—It only flies when the twilight of a certain historical moment arrives.
Thus, by its own morphology, philosophy (which can be replaced by "wisdom"[8]) and History (as an area of knowledge) are always behind schedule.
This is the dialectical nature of history: what is happening now will determine what will happen. What happened determined what's happening now. Each chapter of history is part of the following chapters. Imagine that the chapters of history are episodes of a series. We can only understand what happens in the series when, at the beginning of the present episode, we see, "in the predicted chapter...". In other words, because we're very involved with the whole plot of the series, we can't understand the events of the episode we're watching. Just with the beginning of the next episode and the contextualization of what happened in the previous chapter, we understand something. We'll only understand what happened on today's episode next week.
The problem, however, continues (as usual). We saw that we can only study history when it is crystallized, that is, when it becomes part of a perfect past, finished, crystallized.[9]
The question, then, is, "What chapter of history really ends?" The Bolshevik Revolution (in 1917) was not a continuation of the revolutions of 1905 and 1912? Wasn't she an answer to Romanov absolutism? Is not the history of the Soviet Union a continuation of the history of the Romanov Dynasty? What about the history of the Russian Federation? Is this not a continuation of Soviet history and thus a continuation of the history of the Russian Empire?
Today, a Russian is unable to write the history of the Empire that ended at the beginning of the last century, because from the point of view of history, it is not yet over. Similarly, a Frenchman cannot yet write the history of the French Revolution, because in a sense it is not over.
The past is as unpredictable as the future. History is an impossible matter. With regard to Syria, but also with regard to other wars, revolutions and events that appear to be "historical" and relevant, we can only observe and hope that history will happen before our eyes, always with the anguish of being stuck in Time, unable to predict what will happen and unable to fully understand what has happened. At least we won't have to sell our mothers as slaves to find out what happens in the next chapters.
Port, 2025.
[1] "Mohammed", in his case, is sometimes transliterated to "Mohammad" and "al-Jolani", "al-Julani" or "al-Jawlani".
[3] V for Vendetta. (2005). Directed by James McTeigue. USA: Warner Bros.
[4] Since this year, the film completes two decades of existence, I reserve the freedom to give spoilers without any kind of inhibition.
[5] Or, simply, Philosophy of Law, depending on the translation.
[6] My knowledge of the German language is minimal. At best, I can convince someone who doesn't speak anything German that I speak and understand the language. Looking for Brazilian and Portuguese versions of the book, I came across poorly translated and deeply different from each other. So I prefer to quote in English (language in which I read the book) and refer to the original version for those who speak German and have the courage and patience necessary.
[7] HEGEL, G. W. F. (1821) 22nd ed. Elements of the Philosophy of Right, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 21.
[8] After all, the word Philosophy (Φιλοσοάία) is a construction derived from άιλία (friendship) and σοία (wisdom).
[9] Since we don't know how ideas and events will be crystallized, trying to predict the future is trying the impossible.
This text was originally published by the Catholic Policy Society (CPS), defunct since 2025.