Politics revolves around power and decision-making. This principle applies to all eras, systems, and cultures. Furthermore, whether we consciously enter the political field or are compelled to engage with politics due to its omnipresence in our age, there is no such thing as being distant from politics today. All issues, as George Orwell sees them, are political issues. We are all participants in a game for power. Therefore, the most important thing is to understand and master the rules of this game. This applies to all of us. We all have a stake in one way or another, whether we are official decision-makers, citizens, journalists, lobby groups, or political advisors. However, a question arises regarding the extent and margin of freedom for individuals who do not hold power or have it only in limited circles of influence. But what is power? And does its concept today, in the political world, rest solely in the hands of a government that has the legitimacy to enforce the law, or is power a wide circle in which everyone participates?

Power, in its simplest terms, means unequal and imbalanced relationships between two parties in the political society. In its deeper meaning, it involves influences and reactions in societies, meaning individuals who positively or negatively impact others or groups, not necessarily politically but possibly socially or economically. Undoubtedly, the state's power, derived from law and ensuring equality of opportunity and balance between authorities, is political power. The power exercised by a party leader, in the civic sense, over its members and the public opinion is also political power, because a political party is an organization of individuals with specific ideas and goals they strive to achieve in a peaceful power transition. This represents political power.

However, what about the power of the head of the family? The power of a tribal leader? The power of a religious leader? The power of men over women? Aren’t these areas of influence that one party holds in this equation worth studying, especially in Arab societies where non-traditional power structures often overshadow the state’s influence? Moreover, the power of men over women is, in one of its crucial dimensions, an economic power. The power of a tribal leader over tribe members might not have the civil dimension enforced by the modern state but could be a traditional power according to Max Weber’s analysis. What is the social impact of this kind of power on individual freedom?

Freedom is that inherent quality that accompanies humans, as John Stuart Mill said in his "On Liberty," while Montesquieu stated that freedom is doing what the law allows. In contrast, power, in the broader social sense, is the ability of an individual, institution, or organization to influence the behavior patterns of individuals, based on legal force, personal charisma, or the threat or use of actual force, according to Weber’s classification of types of power. This means power is a determining factor in shaping individual choices and behaviors, whether political, social, or even ideological. Power is determined by the extent to which individuals hold influence in society, whether limited or extensive, as an individual has power in proportion to the legal authority granted to them or through dominance and influence, enabling them to execute their will. The relationship between power and freedom is one of the most debated issues in political thought.

Let me expand a bit more on the concept of power, drawing from George Orwell’s idea in his novel 1984. Although Orwell’s novel addresses the tyranny of political power and its repression of individual freedom, I would like to adopt a less conventional perspective on power, indirectly linking it to political thought history. For example, the Greeks saw power as the control of one human by another. The study, especially by Plato and Aristotle, focused on a socio-political relationship to ensure equality among all.

Orwell, through the character Winston in 1984, believes that a human needs not just freedom, but the feeling of being free. In a dialogue between O'Brien and Winston, O'Brien asks: "How does one exert power over another?" to which Winston answers: "By making them suffer!" This absence of restraint on an individual’s feeling of having a unique being, expressing their horizon, perspective, and life in a way that doesn’t violate their freedom, is what defines liberty. Any power that inhibits this feeling is a killer of freedom.

Is this idea exaggerated? What about the legal power that the state holds, especially in democratic societies, when it imposes laws that prevent individuals from infringing upon each other's freedom in an organized political society? The answer can be found in Mill’s general rule on the state's power over individuals, which is the core of contemporary liberal thought. Mill draws a distinction between actions that affect only the individual and those that affect others, concluding that the state, represented by the government, has the right to regulate the first type, while the second should be free from social interference, as intervening would lead to the tyranny of the majority.

Returning to the meaning of power as causing suffering and pain to others, such power, when exercised in non-democratic societies, doesn’t rely on law but instead becomes a barrier to individual freedom, creating a distortion of the balance between power and freedom, inevitably leading to the tyranny of the state and society over the individual. The pain inflicted is psychological, social, political, and economic.

In democratic societies, the power is legally sourced, and individual freedoms have developed in a way that has balanced between the issue of power in all its dimensions and freedom. For example, the power of a religious leader is confined to the private sphere of individuals' lives, whereas in non-democratic societies, the power of traditional structures extends into the public sphere, as is the case in most Arab countries.

The individual in Arab states is trapped between the issue of "power that causes pain, whether they realize it or not" and freedom, as defined by Jean-Paul Sartre, who linked human existence to freedom, stating that "an unfree human is not human." He said: “Freedom is not a priori or automatic, but humans are the ones who create and achieve it.”

Thus, based on Orwell’s literary expression, I have addressed the broader societal dimension of power, as “causing pain to others” (or domination, according to Hannah Arendt’s concept). Arendt distinguished between power and domination. Power, according to her, is tied to the existence of the people who are subjected to it—it is not an individual trait but rather something that belongs to a group. When we talk about someone in power, according to Arendt’s analysis, it means they have been chosen by a group of people to represent them. Domination, on the other hand, refers to hierarchical relationships like those between parents and children, or students and teachers, or any social relationship based on obedience, not necessarily through coercion but also through respect.

Can the respect commanded by a religious leader, or the moral coercion they represent, create a political event that impacts the actions of individuals in political societies? The answer requires revisiting the concept of domination in Arab thought and experience.

In conclusion, it can be said that the issue of individual freedom remains one of the most challenging topics in philosophy, especially in relation to freedom and necessity, or power. A human, in their internal essence, enjoys freedom, and in their freedom, they can think, choose, and apply their intellect regarding their inner world and the world around them—what distinguishes them from other creatures. At the same time, external developments occur independently of their will. The external world consists of conditions, factors, historical events, and natural developments that correspond to the individual’s internal world, made up of their imagination, emotions, thoughts, behaviors, and accumulated experiences that shape their personality.

The current Syrian model is one of the most recent and intriguing, as the country is undergoing a transformation from an authoritarian, dictatorial regime that repressed freedoms, revealing the problem of power as causing suffering, and freedom as protecting the individual’s essence, guaranteeing their expression, and preserving their dignity in its clearest sense, to a political system that aims to preserve freedoms.

Studying the issue of power and freedom in Syria today requires an academic, analytical reading that moves away from emotional reactions while drawing broad lines to ensure that power reduces suffering as much as possible, rather than causing harm to others, and that freedom is a responsibility.

I concluded the first part of this essay with the following passage: “The issue of individual freedom remains one of the most difficult dilemmas tackled by philosophy, especially regarding the relationship between freedom and necessity, or power. The human being, in their inner essence, enjoys freedom. In their freedom, they can think, choose, and apply their intellect regarding their inner world and the surrounding world, which distinguishes them from other creatures. At the same time, there are external developments that happen independently of their will. The external world consists of conditions, factors, historical events, and natural developments, which correspond to the individual’s internal world of imagination, emotions, thoughts, behaviors, and accumulated experiences that form their personality.”

Now, I continue this essay with an analysis of the relationship between power and freedom. Montesquieu made two crucial statements: first, “freedom is doing what the law allows,” and second, “whoever holds power tends to abuse it.”

Therefore, individual freedom is a responsibility in this sense, especially when the exercise of freedom harms others. According to Montesquieu, when freedom causes harm, it is no longer freedom but chaos. How can freedom be practiced as a responsibility? What must exist to ensure that freedom is the practice of what the law allows? And to reduce the abuse of power?

Firstly, this requires the existence of a state of law where all are equal before the law, preventing the law from allowing one individual to do what it prohibits others. Secondly, vertical relationships based on family, sect, or tribe should not obstruct the creation of horizontal civil relationships, where allegiance to the nation becomes a refuge for all individuals. The protection of vertical relationships from the hegemony of power suggests a fundamental flaw in the power structure itself.

Thirdly, transitioning from a concept of politics focused solely on seizing power to one based on deepened participation and the consolidation of collective responsibility is essential. Participation that guarantees the legitimacy of power and collective responsibility that prevents individuals from violating the law while exercising their freedom.

Fourthly, there is a psychological tendency to abuse power. Power is tempting to those who hold it, and the same principles that prevent individuals from abusing their freedom should apply to those in power—namely, the state of law and equality before it. Power that respects the freedom of individuals, without discrimination based on anything other than citizenship, prevents individuals in power from monopolizing decisions. In this sense, freedom is the foundation, and justice is the safeguard against monopolizing power.

In these terms, power no longer becomes the infliction of pain on others, as Orwell suggested, but seeks to reduce pain as much as possible. Similarly, freedom is not chaos but responsibility.

Pascal said that a person’s dignity lies in their intellect. Power should guarantee this dignity, not just by providing a decent standard of living but also by respecting thought and the freedom to express different opinions. John Stuart Mill said that human beings strive for everything that secures their dignity, including freedom of discussion.

There is no freedom without dignity of thought and a guarantee of the freedom to express it. This allows individuals in a state of law to express themselves in a non-violent way, as politics is about replacing the use of force with dialogue. The guarantee for dialogue is the awareness of individuals and their ability to accept the different views of others, not just tolerate them. Tolerance implies a strong party and a weak one, whereas in a state of law, everyone is equal and has the same sources of power.

The question that arises is: how can freedom be protected in a country undergoing a transition from an authoritarian regime to another political system? Countries undergoing political transitions often experience chaos, and if the new political system is committed to ensuring the freedom of individuals, it should avoid reproducing the same tactics of the previous regime. The new system should not resort to exclusion.

The Syrian model today is worthy of study. It is new and needs a careful reading of its situation and time to identify its features. However, it can be said that the current regime must be cautious about using the tactics of the former regime, based on exclusion, due to the temptations of power and the people's thirst for freedom. The previous regime repressed freedoms and instilled a culture of fear of others, playing on the fears of minorities of majority rule and vice versa.

What the new system needs is reassurance, dialogue, and policies that root out the seeds of discord, ensuring the rights of both minorities and majorities. What comes to mind is Mill’s famous saying that humanity should never silence a single objection. This individual, regardless of their primary affiliations, must be a citizen first, belonging to a state that makes their essence free from any threat.

While individuals in chaos strive for survival, they must ensure they do not degrade each other’s dignity. Dignity is not just in life but also in thought. One of the most urgent needs of the Syrian experience today is the reconstruction of inclusive national concepts, overcoming the mentality of exclusion. Revolution is not just about a flag or a slogan; minds need to be rebuilt, and patterns of thinking need to change.

Maintaining the old mindset and placing it in a closed box to be opened during crucial moments of dialogue or during the creation of a new social contract implies following the wave of change without thoughtful consideration. Thus, the relationship between power and freedom remains an eternal issue. Power should never waste freedom, and freedom should never violate the law. In this way, power becomes legitimate and freedom a responsibility.