Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, Religion

Q&A: ‘Death Penalty Serves Interests of Despotic Regimes’

Interview with Nedal Naeiseh

CASABLANCA, Morocco, Nov 30 2007 (IPS) - Syria strongly opposed the recently passed U.N. resolution calling for an immediate moratorium on executions and end to capital punishment. But Nedal Naeiseh – Syrian writer and journalist – believes the regime is close to the day when it will join the growing number of abolitionist nations.

In an interview with Abderrahim El Ouali, IPS correspondent for North Africa and the Middle East, Naeiseh says solving the Middle East conflict would remove any pretext for retaining capital punishment in his country.

Some excerpts from the interview:

IPS: You write regularly on abolitionist issues. Is there an active anti-death penalty movement in Syria?

Nedal Naeiseh: There is no engaged, organized intellectual movement working to abolish the death penalty in our country. There are individuals who are campaigning. These, and independent groups, can only take on a small number of cases because they lack funds and the facilities to lobby.

In Syria civil society organizations, independent associations and political parties are almost non-existent. But there is an official current – still not so obvious – progressing towards the abolition of this barbaric punishment.

There is no doubt in my mind regarding Syria, Syria really intends to be part of the global movement for radical international change. This especially includes respecting the United Nations call for the abolition of the death penalty.

Standing in the way of achieving this are some pressing regional problems.

IPS: The Syrian penal code calls for the death penalty for anyone who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood opposition group. Does this mean that any other opposition group would face the same sanction?

NN: You are referring to law number 49. This was introduced in 1980 after the bloody clashes that took place between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Syrian regime. There were specific circumstances that led to this law; it was to stop the bloody conflict of that period . . . We do not want such a law applied in Syria or any other part of the world.

I should say here that the law is ‘semi-suspended’. All death sentences have been reduced to 12 years imprisonment or even less. But there were undoubtedly past abuses in the application of this law. The sentences are now made public and published in the media.

I really do not think that any other political organisation has faced – or will face – such a measure as long as constitutional rules are followed and violence is not advocated to achieve political ends.

IPS: In Syria the application of the death penalty is often tied to collaboration with the ‘enemy’, which means Israel. Does this mean that abolition depends on finding a solution to the Syrian-Israeli conflict in particular, and the Arab- Israeli conflict in general?

NN: There is certainly a solid connection between the death penalty and the on-going state of emergency in Syria and the Syrian conflict with Israel. In nearly all legal codes around the world you will find sanctions for collaborating with the enemy. It is termed ‘high treason’ and severely punished.

Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict would certainly lead to some radical constitutional and legal changes in Syria. Then, efforts could be focused on amending the laws now in force so they meet standards you would find in the most developed countries. Solving this conflict would remove the pretext for applying the death penalty – or ever extending it.

IPS: Criminals who commit ‘revenge crimes’ in Syria escape the death penalty. When the family of a murder victim takes revenge against the murder’s family or friends, in court they can argue that there were extenuating circumstances. Is this encouraging murder by letting these criminals go without full punishment?

NN: Syrian lawmakers are influenced by our customs and tribal traditions because of the moral value they have in society. But, in my view, this does not mean that the laws meet recognized legal standards and are humane. Any criminal must be punished according to modern legal norms and, of course, the death penalty is not one of these.

You are correct. What happens is unjust. It encourages more killings under the guise of taking revenge. Also, no one should be punished for a crime committed by another person. Revenge killings are absolutely illegal and should be punished by the law.

There are other crimes even more dangerous than revenge crimes. I am talking here about ‘honour killings’. These are also another kind of death penalty carried out by individuals outside the law. Many women are killed when there is suspicion they have committed adultery or because of an innocent rendezvous. Many innocent girls are victims of unjust tribal and sectarian laws. I can say that there are two kinds of laws existing in our society: tribal laws – some of which derive from Sharia law – and modern laws. But the first group remains the more influential of the two.

IPS: Under the state of emergency in Syria is there really space for abolitionist groups to work?

NN: The state of emergency and the absence of civil society organizations and suspicion of any social movement are preventing any lobbying.

Under the emergency laws now in force any meeting of more than two people is criminalized. But actually in our public activities we find these measures are relaxed.

IPS: If another Arab state were to abolish the death penalty, would this influence Syria to do the same?

NN: No, I don’t think so. Arab countries have many similarities but they vary in degree.

Syria, because of its ethnic and religious diversity and openness to global changes, might be more prepared to abolish the death penalty and adhere to modern and enlightened ideas. But for this to happen there must be a general campaign here to increase death penalty awareness in society.

IPS: If Muslim scholars were to agree that the death penalty violates religious teachings, would this oblige political regimes in the region to abolish it?

NN: Scholars have always been servile and entirely dependent on the political regimes in our region. They have always been mouthpieces of the politicians. Throughout the entire history of the region there has been a strong alliance between politicians and scholars.

Regimes have respected the holy texts only in so far as they have served their own interests. The texts have always been interpreted by scholars in a way that has ensured the continuity of these regimes and their interests. Many Muslim reformists who have attempted to interpret the holy texts in a more liberal way have faced criticism and accusations of treason.

Our scholars have always been too conservative . . . they have closed their eyes to the changes taking part in the rest of the world. We’ve never seen them taking an individual, intellectual stand on social issues.

I am sorry to say, the death penalty serves the interests of despotic regimes in the region and it is futile to expect scholars will speak out for abolition.