In post-Assad Syria, the battle for narrative supremacy has shifted from the battlefield to the timeline. With the regime’s fall still fresh, a digital war has erupted across social media platforms—one not fought with weapons, but with hashtags, accusations, and populist rhetoric.
The collapse of Assad’s rule, long deemed unthinkable, ignited celebrations among Syrians. Yet almost immediately, attention turned to the nature of the new leadership, with early coverage focusing on the Islamist roots of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. In the absence of a robust state media apparatus, social platforms quickly filled the void. But instead of fostering informed dialogue, they became flooded with disinformation, sectarian incitement, and nationalist venom.
The question troubling many Syrians now watching silently and painfully: Why has the post-Assad promise given way to another war—this time of narratives?
Populism and the Rise of Fear-Based Influence
The return of hope and vitality among Syrians has coincided with a reawakening of opportunism. A new wave of media figures, emboldened by soaring public attention and the lack of institutional oversight, has transformed social media into a weapon of fear and division. Masquerading as “influencers,” these populist voices blend uncritical praise for the transitional government with vitriolic attacks on dissent, creating a digital climate defined by tribalism and intimidation.
Syrian novelist Maha Hassan observes, “This culture of online intimidation doesn’t just obstruct reconciliation—it actively sabotages any serious effort to build a Syria that reflects the dreams of those who revolted and waited fourteen years for change. These campaigns corrode the very idea of a safe, inclusive homeland.” She adds: “No one has the right to accuse another of treason. Treason is when someone assumes the country belongs solely to them and their ideas, and denies others the right to speak.”
Everyone Under Siege
Responsibility doesn’t lie solely with the populists. Their critics, too, have often sunk into emotional bickering and reactive cynicism—accusing, recycling rumors, and abandoning basic journalistic ethics like fact-checking or contextual integrity.
Many in the opposing camp have adopted the same tactics: inflammatory rhetoric, sectarian provocation, and Islamophobic alarmism—fanning fears of a “Talibanized Syria.”
As both sides settle into their echo chambers, each acquires a loyal base but loses the ability to influence broader public discourse. Rather than shaping the national conversation, these figures have become instruments—willing or not—of the factions they claim to champion.
The Vanishing of Voices
Perhaps most striking is the silence of a third group: the intellectuals and journalists who once actively shaped Syrian discourse. Many have simply withdrawn, unwilling to participate in the chaos. Others, like journalist Yaareb Al-Issa, remain cautiously hopeful. “What we’re witnessing is a temporary turbulence,” he said. “A natural disorder after monumental shifts. Gradually, I believe the media and influencers will regain a degree of logic and objectivity. In fact, the fevered rhetoric is already beginning to cool.”
A Crisis of Credibility
Still, the cultural and political elite faces criticism for losing relevance in the age of viral populism. As independent media and satellite channels rose, a new class of influencers—masters of emotional appeal and performance—eclipsed traditional intellectuals. According to researcher Aladdin Al-Khatib, this shift has deepened the gap between Syria’s elites and its people.
“The Syrian revolution was a genuine popular uprising by a humiliated people demanding dignity, freedom, and justice,” he says. “But like all popular movements, it was also chaotic. As the brutality of the Assad regime and its allies intensified, a vacuum opened—and it was filled not by thinkers, but by demagogues.”
Al-Khatib argues that the global crisis of sectarian, ethnic, and political polarization is especially perilous in Syria’s fragile context. Facing this challenge must be the top priority for the government, media, and intelligentsia—before the economic and political crises can even begin to be resolved.
The Government’s Dangerous Silence
Conspicuously absent from this social media battleground is the Syrian government itself. It has chosen silence, allowing a digital militia of loyalist influencers to do the talking. These “new shabiha”—as many now call them—may offer short-term gains in shaping public opinion, but in the long run, they risk fragmenting society and undermining the credibility of the transitional government by tethering it to extremism and online thuggery.
The question remains: is this negligence or complicity?
A Missing Media State
Six months after Assad’s fall, the excuse of transitional disorder no longer holds. The government bears direct responsibility for failing to regulate the online sphere—not by curbing free expression, but by neglecting to counter false narratives with facts.
The first serious step it could take? Rebuilding a trustworthy state media to serve as a credible alternative to chaos and clickbait. That, however, still seems far off.
As political theorist Francis Fukuyama once warned: “Populism doesn’t solve crises—it sells illusions as solutions.” Syrians today are still waiting for the illusions to end.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
