A few months before the fall of the Assad regime in December of last year, Portugal marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Carnation Revolution, a movement that began with a military coup by army officers opposed to the dictatorship. The uprising quickly gained overwhelming public support, setting Portugal on the path to democratization. However, the sudden collapse of the regime created a complicated transition, particularly due to the purging of the former ruling elite and the economic crisis that followed.
While Syria’s transition differs significantly from Portugal’s experience, the challenges of elite purges and economic instability remain central. In Portugal, the economic elite loyal to the dictatorship suffered under state intervention and nationalization, prompting an exodus of industrialists and business figures. In Syria, the situation has unfolded differently, as many economic elites have remained, but the consequences of their entrenchment—or removal—may prove equally disruptive.
In Portugal, the coup leaders initially sought to engage with former economic tycoons, but strikes, union resistance, and public pressure derailed these efforts. Within two years of the dictatorship’s fall, the country plunged into a severe economic crisis. The new ruling elite was forced to impose harsh austerity measures and seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund, all while battling a deep recession and declining real wages. Early signs of similar economic strain are already visible in Syria today.
The transition in Portugal was further complicated by the return of hundreds of thousands of citizens from former colonies, which exacerbated economic difficulties. This led, within a few years, to a widespread nostalgia for the dictatorship, as many blamed democracy for worsening living conditions. Despite this shift in public sentiment, Portugal’s democratic transition remained intact, though it required a retreat from some radical measures, particularly the purges, which had extended beyond their original goal of dismantling authoritarian structures.
Talks with businessmen
The experience of Portugal offers valuable lessons on the risks of extreme purges against elites associated with former authoritarian regimes. While some level of accountability is necessary, such measures must be carefully calibrated to prevent destabilization. The transitional government in Syria is already facing intense criticism over its handling of figures from the former regime. Protests erupted in Damascus’ Tadamon neighborhood after the return of a National Defense leader accused of war crimes, following an alleged settlement with the authorities. This incident highlights the urgent need for a national debate on transitional justice to ensure stability and avoid further social fractures in a country already at its breaking point.
A recent report by Reuters revealed that Syria’s new authorities have engaged in talks with prominent businessmen who were once closely aligned with the Assad regime. Among the key figures mentioned were Mohammed Hamsho and Samer Foz. The report, which appears to convey deliberate messages from the transitional government to both domestic and international audiences, contained several striking details. One revelation was that Samer Foz, like Mohammed Hamsho, holds Turkish citizenship. The news of Hamsho’s Turkish nationality surfaced months before the fall of the Assad regime when he was stripped of his parliamentary membership. Shortly afterward, reports emerged that Hamsho was negotiating a settlement with the new authorities, with alleged backing from Turkey. Now, it has been revealed that Foz also has a similar connection.
Britain Tracks Russian Ships Transporting Munitions from Syria After Assad’s Fall
The report also underscored the economic weight and influence of these figures. Officials within the new authorities admitted that removing them entirely would not serve the country’s economic interests and acknowledged that engagement with them is, to some extent, unavoidable. Even Karam Shaar, an economist known for his long-standing opposition to the Assad regime, recognized the necessity of these dealings. Another significant detail in the report was a statement from an associate of Samer Foz, who indicated that the new authorities appear to be pursuing a reconciliatory approach toward these business elites.
The notion of reconciliation with the financial figures of the Assad era has sparked widespread concerns, particularly among business leaders who were either not as closely aligned with the former regime or were outright opposed to it. Some fear that these figures, who thrived under Assad’s patronage, will once again dominate Syria’s economic landscape, sidelining those who lacked similar advantages. Others worry about the resurgence of corrupt alliances between business tycoons and the new authorities, replicating the cronyism of the previous era. A deeper concern is that these figures could use their expertise in navigating international sanctions to help the new government bypass Western restrictions, a move that might lead Syria further into economic isolation. The most extreme fear is that the former regime could reassert itself through its economic elite, mirroring the counter-revolutions that emerged in some Arab Spring countries.
Despite these concerns, an unavoidable question remains: how can Syria manage the economic elites of the former regime without further destabilizing its already fragile economy? Some argue that negotiating settlements with these figures could be a strategic means of dismantling the regime’s entrenched economic networks and neutralizing those who might otherwise use their influence to sabotage the transition, whether through security threats or economic manipulation.
If framed correctly, this strategy could serve as a pragmatic tool to weaken the remnants of Assad’s economic power. However, the lack of transparency surrounding these deals remains a major issue. The new authorities have yet to provide clear explanations for why these settlements are being made and what their long-term consequences will be. This opacity fuels public scepticism and raises concerns that such compromises could lead to the very problems that Syrians fought to overcome.
In this uncertain landscape, public and elite pressure—expressed through social media and civil discourse—plays a crucial role in holding the transitional authorities accountable. Ensuring that these engagements do not result in a mere reconfiguration of the old corrupt order is essential to preventing a repetition of past failures.
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.
