The authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are face to face with a great challenge. Even though the borders that these authoritarian regimes ascended to throne in were drawn with the World War II the regimes here generally came out after the World War II. The elites rose up as pro-western and with a western lifestyle generally played a role in the struggle for independence through secular and nationalist discourse and got the power in the newly emerged states. 

 

Nasserism emerged in Egypt and became an inspiration of the Middle Eastern regimes. Gamal Abdelnasser revolutionized King Faruk via a coup d’état in Egypt as a response to the influence of British in the country in 1952. Despite of the promise of democracy Nasser closed the substantial political parties and converted the regime into a strict authoritarian regime. Nasserism basing on a socialist, ultranationalist and secular model was imitated later on in the region as a administration model besides being an inspiration of the independence movements in the region. In Syria and Iraq Baath Party got the power through coups. Similar influence was observed in Algeria, Libya and Yemen.    

 

It is not a coincidence that particularly Nasser model (authoritarian, secular and nationalist regimes) failed in half a century. Although these regimes came to power utilizing the anti-colonial responses, they established an elitist regime and concerted into an oppressive characteristic since they are not based on power of public. In the last half a century these regimes considered ever single demand for democracy as a threat thus oppressed them via violent instruments. They even escalated the pressure of democratic wave in the Eastern Europe and Caucuses via oppression.  

 

The nature of these regimes is not suitable for reform. Egypt and Tunisia they were revolutionized via peaceful protest waves since they were not reformed. In Libya and Yemen where the state tradition has not been constituted yet and which is generally based on tribe connection the clashes continues. The authoritarian leaders, instead of taking the demands of the public into consideration when the demands regarding reforms rose up and soften the atmosphere they preferred to oppress them via harsh methods. Upon the increasing protests they return to do the things in fact they had to do beforehand but since everything gets out of hands they remain to be futile.    

 

The Syrian regime goes on its way in the very same route. Instead of doing the required reforms it still approaches the demand suspiciously and oppressively. It was expected from Basher Esad to make many reforms when he got to power after his father’s death in 2000s but he didn’t or couldn’t. Even Basher Esad indicated that Syria should go through a reform when he had an interview with the Guardian following the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia but diespite of the passage of time nothing has come out. He had the oppurtunity to make reforms when the country rose up to the protest weeks ago.

 

At the very same time Turkey tried to encourage Esad to make the required reforms. Both as a young politician and via the sympathy that he gained for his attitude towards the Palestinian case he had the change to transform the state internally. But Esad didn’t preferred or couldn’t prefer this way. He avoided from reforms but for a few ostensible changes and promises. As a requirement of nature of authoritarian regimes those who caused a problem may not be able to resolve it. Sometimes the political structures are more determinative than personal will and initiative. Esad couldn’t show a leadership that will overcome this.  

 

In the last month the protesters were challenged with weapons and more than 350 people have been killed. The view that Esad regime doesn’t have any intention of reform and it doesn’t pity the public was consolidated thus the hopes of reforms vanes gradually. Since the protest waves grew even though the things to have been done are done today they will not be so believable. The Syrian people will decide a regime change in Syria instead of Turkey or the international community. However, encouragement for reforms and pressure in this respect is both duty of Turkey and that of the international community. The international law, ethical requirements and the understanding of Turkey of democracy requires objection against the arbitrary killing of the peaceful protesters. Since the die is cast in Syria the resistance of the regime may draw the country into a more problematic situation with the possibility of civil war, ethnic clashes and sectarian clashes. Furthermore, although it may cause some problems in short run an democratic Syria will be more beneficial for Turkey.