Internal Fragmentation and Collective Energy Dissipation within the Syriac Diaspora

By Denho Bar Mourad–Özmen | Former Special Educator and Advisor at Sweden’s National Agency for Special Education

The Assyrian/Syriac people, despite their historical significance and cultural richness, face a unique challenge in the modern era: persistent internal fragmentation that undermines political influence, institutional development, and cultural continuity. This paper explores the historical, ecclesiastical, political, and socio-cultural dimensions of this fragmentation and proposes a path forward rooted in inclusive institutional building, shared identity formation, and democratic cohesion. Positive developments — such as cross-organizational cooperation in Syria and the outreach of the Syriac League in Lebanon — are examined as case studies pointing toward potential transformation.

Historical Roots of Fragmentation

The fragmentation of the Assyrian/Syriac diaspora cannot be fully understood without reference to its historical trajectory. The Assyrian/Syriac people are descendants of the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations that flourished in what is now Iraq, southeastern Turkey, Syria, and parts of Iran. Their history includes significant contributions to writing, law, theology, and architecture. However, this legacy has also been marked by waves of persecution, including the Sayfo genocide during World War I and repeated marginalization under modern nation-states.

These traumatic events led to widespread displacement and the formation of a diaspora dispersed across multiple continents. While diaspora formation often generates opportunities for political advocacy and cultural preservation, in this case it has coincided with identity fragmentation. The Assyrian/Syriac community has remained divided along lines of ecclesiastical affiliation, local customs, and self-designations — such as Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean, Syriac, and Mhalmi — each of which reflects different historical, linguistic, or religious emphases. Instead of fostering unity through a shared experience of displacement, the diaspora’s geographic dispersion has solidified internal divisions.

Ecclesiastical Structures and the Multiplication of Authority

Religious institutions have historically been central to preserving Assyrian/Syriac identity, particularly through the transmission of the Aramaic language and liturgical traditions. Yet, these institutions have also inadvertently reinforced fragmentation. The proliferation of patriarchs and church hierarchies — a phenomenon metaphorically described as “patriarch inflation” — has led to competing claims of authority and divergent religious narratives.

The existence of multiple ecclesiastical bodies, such as the Assyrian Church of the East, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, and the Syriac Catholic Church, has resulted in parallel communities that rarely cooperate institutionally. Each church often promotes a distinct historical narrative and theological interpretation, fostering an “in-group versus out-group” mentality that limits cross-communal solidarity.

Moreover, ecclesiastical competition over legitimacy, membership, and financial resources can inhibit ecumenical dialogue and joint cultural or political initiatives. Instead of functioning as pillars of a unified ethno-religious identity, these churches often act as separate — and at times competing — spheres of influence.

Political and Secular Organizations as Parallel Divisive Forces

Political fragmentation mirrors and often compounds ecclesiastical division. Rather than uniting around common policy goals or national aspirations, political and secular organizations within the Assyrian/Syriac community have historically advanced competing identity frameworks and divergent agendas. This has resulted in duplicated efforts, diminished lobbying capacity, and a lack of coherent representation at both national and international levels.

Many organizations advocate for particular ethnonyms — be it Assyrian, Chaldean, or Aramean — as exclusive identity markers. In doing so, they often reject alternative expressions of identity as illegitimate or historically inaccurate. This approach not only fuels internal conflict but also weakens the community’s ability to speak with a unified voice in political and diplomatic arenas.

Resources that could be directed toward preserving endangered languages, promoting human rights, or strengthening cultural education are frequently diverted into identity-based debates and inter-organizational rivalries. This inefficiency stands in contrast to other ethno-religious communities — such as Armenian or Jewish diasporas — which have largely succeeded in creating umbrella institutions that encompass internal diversity while projecting external unity.

Cultural Heritage and the Identity Paradox

The fragmentation of identity also has implications for cultural heritage. Competing groups within the community have, at times, sought to appropriate historical symbols and figures exclusively for their own subgroup. For instance, the Aramaic language, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and ancient Mesopotamian scientific achievements have all been selectively claimed, rather than collectively celebrated.

This tendency undermines efforts to establish a unified cultural narrative. It also weakens the Assyrian/Syriac people’s ability to assert ownership of their historical contributions on the global stage. By contrast, other communities have successfully integrated diverse historical identities into cohesive national or cultural narratives. The modern Greek identity, for example, synthesizes ancient Hellenic, Byzantine, and Orthodox Christian heritages without perceiving these layers as contradictory.

The identity paradox within the Assyrian/Syriac diaspora is thus twofold: on one hand, internal differentiation reflects genuine historical and cultural richness; on the other, the inability to embrace this complexity collectively results in fragmentation and political inertia.

Toward a Shared Identity and Inclusive Institutions

In response to these challenges, there is an increasing awareness of the need to coalesce around a shared identity framework. Establishing consensus on a collective ethnonym — one that inclusively reflects the various sub-identities — has become not only politically strategic but existentially important for the long-term survival of the Assyrian/Syriac people.

Equally critical is the formation of modern institutions that transcend ecclesiastical and ideological divides. Such institutions should prioritize democratic values, cultural inclusivity, and forward-looking nation-building strategies. Their mission must be to cultivate a sense of common peoplehood rather than reinforce historical sectarian distinctions. These bodies can serve as platforms for civic education, youth engagement, academic research, and coordinated political advocacy.

The responsibility to lead this transformation lies primarily with democratic and secular organizations, rather than with ecclesiastical authorities who may be constrained by doctrinal mandates. Political bodies with a commitment to pluralism and inclusion are better positioned to forge a shared narrative that resonates across generational, geographic, and linguistic divides.

Signs of Progress and Emerging Models of Unity

Despite the challenges, there are encouraging signs of emerging cooperation across formerly divided segments of the community. In northern Syria, for example, Assyrian/Syriac political organizations have begun working together within newly established local governance frameworks. Their collaboration in drafting policy proposals and advocating for minority rights within autonomous administrative bodies represents a significant departure from historical divisions.

A similar positive development has occurred in Lebanon, where the Syriac League recently celebrated a major institutional anniversary by inviting a wide range of Assyrian/Syriac political and cultural organizations to participate. This act of inclusive outreach demonstrated a tangible effort to transcend nomenclatural and ecclesiastical differences in favor of shared cultural and political goals. The event created a platform for dialogue, mutual recognition, and the reaffirmation of a shared heritage.

These cases indicate that unity is not only possible but already underway in localized contexts. The challenge ahead lies in scaling these models into transnational, diaspora-wide initiatives capable of institutionalizing inclusion, mutual respect, and strategic coordination.

Conclusion

The Assyrian/Syriac diaspora stands at a crossroads. The historical legacy of fragmentation, while deeply rooted, is not immutable. A conscious and coordinated effort to embrace internal diversity while cultivating a shared identity is both necessary and achievable. Establishing inclusive institutions and converging around a collective name will not eliminate all differences, but it can redirect energy from internal contestation toward constructive action.

In an increasingly interconnected world, where political visibility and institutional coherence are prerequisites for minority empowerment, the stakes are high. The community’s ability to survive and flourish will depend on its willingness to transcend old divisions, recognize the richness of its multifaceted identity, and move forward together with purpose and unity.

Reflections on Terminology and the Pursuit of Unity

In this article, the designation Assyrian/Syriac has been consistently employed as an overarching and functional term to refer to a people encompassing various identity labels such as Assyrians, Arameans, Chaldeans, Maronites, and other related groups. It is, however, important to emphasize that this choice does not imply a preference or endorsement of this particular terminology over others. Alternative combinations such as Maronite/Syriac, Syriac-Maronite, or Syriac-Chaldean could have been used with equal validity and with full respect for the internal diversity of the group.

The central argument of this reflection is that these various names essentially refer to one and the same people, sharing common historical roots, cultural expressions, and linguistic heritage. The current terminological distinctions are largely the result of historical, geographical, and religious developments rather than any real ethnic separation.

In light of this, it would be of strategic, cultural, and identity-related importance for the leaders of these communities — both religious and secular — to convene and engage in a structured, inclusive dialogue regarding a shared, collective name. Such a process should not aim to erase internal diversity but rather to establish a unifying label that can represent the full plurality of this people in international, political, and academic arenas.

Similarly, it would be highly desirable for the churches belonging to this people — despite their theological differences and liturgical particularities — to unite under a common designation such as Oriental Syriac Churches (or an equivalent formulation). Each denomination would retain its distinctiveness while simultaneously acknowledging a shared historical and cultural origin. Such a designation could serve as an umbrella term that unites rather than divides, and thereby strengthen the collective voice and presence of this people in an increasingly globalized world.

Denho Bar Mourad-Özmen is a former special educator and advisor at Sweden’s National Agency for Special Education. He is a lecturer, published educational films on Swedish TV,  and has written articles in Swedish educational magazines. He was born in the village of Habses, Tur Abdin, and has written on the Syriac people for Hujada Magazine and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Magazine. He is a long-time journalist and a moderator at Suroyo TV.

The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.

References