By David Bender

    Parliamentary elections are this Sunday in Syria.  Unlike presidential elections in Syria (due in May or June), these elections fully free to the extent that one can vote for whomever one desires, anyone can stand for office, and the candidates with the most votes do win.  Damascus (and I presume other Syrian cities, as well) is covered with campaign banners emblazoned with the names of one of the over nine thousand people (including over one thousand women) running for Parliament.  Candidates set up huge tents in open areas in the city where each night they serve tea and coffee to potential voters to a backdrop of live music.  It would seem that Syria is abuzz with election fever.

    However, I have yet to talk to a single Syrian who intends to vote.  Few can even name issues that are being discussed, aside from abstract calls for reducing corruption.  Candidates’ banners generally say little aside from highly controversial slogans such as:  “Children are our future!”  So many Syrians have an attitude that the election does not really matter.  Unfortunately, they are probably right.

    Constitutionally, the Syrian Parliament has virtually no power.  It cannot introduce legislation; it only approves laws submitted by the president (which it always does).  Part of this comes from the fact that these elections are only for a minority of the seats in the Parliament.  Syria is a Baathist state under the Constitution.  As such, the Baath party is automatically assigned 50% of the seats plus one seat.  Combined with nine other parties that are a part of the ruling coalition and thus guaranteed seats, there are only about 80 seats (out of 250) that are truly contested.  Such a situation is never likely to inspire political activism.

    But a Syrian friend of mine summarized the more important reason for Syrian lack of interest in the election when I asked him if he planned on voting.

    “No, why should I vote?  They’re not running for Parliament for me, they’re running for themselves,” he said.

    While there are a few candidates who are running with real ideas and a respectable following (Mohammad al-Habash is probably the most widely known and respected), most are running because being a Member of Parliament is a highly profitable vocation.  First, being a Member of Parliament opens doors to take part in the corrupt deals that are the foundation of the Syrian economy.  Bribes, import monopolies, and business opportunities abound.  Second, members of Parliament are granted legal immunity and diplomatic passports.  Effectively this becomes a carte blanche to engage in deals that even push the limits of what is acceptable in Syria.  Syrians all know this and as such have little interest in taking time out of their day to vote for someone whose main interest in public service is personal enrichment.

    Given the lack of political enthusiasm, candidates need other ways to get people to the polls to vote for them (beyond a free cup of coffee and some music).  Using family connections and paying for votes two ways.  Extended families in Syria are often extremely large.  If a candidate can get huge numbers of relatives to vote for him or her, given the small voter turnout, gaining a seat is a real possibility.  Presumably those relatives know that they are likely to benefit from having a family member in Parliament, as well.  Also effective in getting a good turnout is simply paying people for votes.

    One Syrian friend recounted her experience:  “A relative called me and said that one of his friends was running for Parliament.  He said that I should vote for him.  I said, ‘OK” and then he told me that if I voted for his friend that I would benefit.”

    She then explained further:  “That means that at the polling station, they would give me some money after I voted for him.”

    “How much?” I ask incredulously.

    “I don’t know, probably about 500 lira ($10).”

    Apparently there is no problem with having a campaign worker standing at some poll stations handing 500 lira notes to everyone who votes for a particular candidate.  The practice is not rampant, but nor is it unheard of.

    While $10 in and of itself is not a huge amount of money, giving that to too many voters would quickly add up.  However, winning candidates, in addition to all the rights and privileges granted to them as MP’s, are paid a stipend of three million Syrian pounds (about $60,000) for their campaign expenses.  

    In the end, though, whether Parliamentary elections in Syria are corrupt or not have few consequences.  The executive wholly dominates Syria’s political system and no reform can emerge unless the president proposes it.  Political reform seems unlikely in the near future.  Riyad Sayf is one of the few Parliamentarians who tried to use his seat to push for reform, however he found himself in and out of prison and in constant legal danger (mostly over supposedly unpaid taxes).  

    However some useful reform could come out of the upcoming presidential election.  While few expect Bashar al-Asad to get much less than 99% of the vote, he will be forced to give a series of speeches in which he will likely outline some ideas for reform.  When he was first elected in 2000, he said that he wanted to begin with economic reform.  Using China as an example of a country that has focused on economic reform before political reform, he said that change would first come to Syria’s economic policy.  Indeed important economic changes have happened, though Intel just opened a research center in China and is unlikely to do so anytime soon in Syria.  It will be interesting to see the model that Bashar puts forward this time.  China is a tough act to emulate:  its size and global importance mean that it is a natural economic power.  Syria will never be China, just as Belgium will not ever be.  A more useful model for Syria might be other smaller East Asia countries, such as Vietnam today, Malaysia a generation ago, or South Korea two generations ago.  Those are places that have put economic growth before political reform and legitimate elections with phenomenal results.