Authoritarianism often begins not with overt oppression but with an insidious culture of suspicion. This dynamic has been observed in various historical contexts, from East Germany’s Stasi to Pinochet’s Chile and Saddam’s Iraq, where loyalty was measured by one’s willingness to betray others. In Syria, where I grew up, the pervasive atmosphere of distrust taught citizens to police themselves, creating a society where even the walls seemed to have ears.
The recent aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s tragic death illustrates this unsettling trend. Within hours of the incident, social media erupted with denunciations, and a website titled “Charlie’s Murderers” emerged, cataloging associates of the accused as if complicity were contagious. This phenomenon highlights a disturbing shift in civic duty, where individuals felt compelled to expose others to prove their loyalty to the nation. The rush to denounce was less about political discourse and more about a performance of loyalty, echoing the informant culture that has plagued authoritarian regimes.
This culture of informing is deeply ingrained. In my childhood in Syria, teachers would appoint a class sheriff, or *areef*, to monitor behavior. This role was seen as an honor, and to maintain it, one had to snitch on peers, even friends. The fear of punishment loomed large, instilling a survival instinct that prioritized silence over truth. The lesson was clear: better to remain quiet than risk retribution.
The Syrian surveillance state, supported by an extensive network of intelligence branches, relied on ordinary citizens to act as informants. Loyalty was equated with vigilance, and families warned their children not to share home discussions. The regime maintained an illusion of free speech, allowing satire to exist in media, yet the reality was stark. When the Assad regime eventually fell, the revelations from intelligence reports exposed a society corroded by betrayal, where informing on neighbors became a twisted form of loyalty.
Even after the regime’s collapse, the remnants of this culture persisted. Recent reports indicate that violence continues to plague Syria, yet many remain silent, conditioned by years of oppression. The habits of fear and mistrust linger, stifling the potential for a truly democratic society.
While the United States is not Syria, the underlying logic of informant culture is alarmingly similar. In both contexts, the act of informing is framed as a patriotic duty. The consequences of this mindset can be severe, leading to a society where individuals are more inclined to silence dissent than engage in open dialogue. The danger lies not in an immediate transformation into an authoritarian state but in the gradual erosion of trust and freedom of expression.
As history has shown, a society that cultivates suspicion and encourages betrayal is one that prepares itself for authoritarianism. The challenge for America is to recognize these patterns before they take root, fostering an environment where open discourse and mutual trust can flourish. Only then can we hope to prevent the rise of a new strongman, ensuring that the lessons of the past are not forgotten.