Generational Conflict and Leadership Dynamics within the Syriac/Assyrian Diaspora: Between Authoritarian Heritage and Digital Modernity

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

Introduction

The Syriac/Assyrian diaspora in Europe currently finds itself in a period of identity negotiation and institutional reconsideration. The initial wave of migrants who arrived in the 1960s and 1970s established the foundations of religious, cultural, and political organizations in exile. Despite the emergence of a growing, well-educated, and civically engaged younger generation, grounded in European values, this cohort has had limited practical influence over the diaspora’s institutional frameworks.

Authoritarian Leadership Heritage in Exile

The leadership style of the older generation often reflects authoritarian norms inherited from the political cultures of their countries of origin — norms characterized by hierarchy, obedience, and control. This administrative culture mirrors what Edward Said (1978) described as internalized orientalism — a condition wherein oppressed minorities replicate repressive structures even within exile contexts. The caution exhibited by elder leaders in relation to the majority society frequently impedes internal critique, innovation, and generational renewal.

Economic Interests and Clientelism in Diaspora Governance

Many diaspora institutions — especially those of a religious or cultural nature — are practically governed by informal networks, economic self-interests, and bonds of loyalty, rather than by competence, transparency, or democratic principles. This fosters a system of clientelism in which power is exercised through personal favors, loyalty, and mutual dependencies rather than formal rules or merit-based assessments.

These patterns — often organized around families, clans, or regions of origin — serve to entrench patriarchal and non-meritocratic forms of leadership. Similar structures have been documented in other Middle Eastern diasporas (Haddad, 2011; Lewis, 2002), where traditional authority and kinship are frequently prioritized over openness, eligibility, and leadership rotation.

In some cases, governing boards are dominated by individuals born in the 1960s or earlier, many of whom retain their positions for extended periods without providing room for younger talents. Documented instances in Europe also point to financial opacity, nepotism, and audit irregularities, all of which have generated internal conflicts and diminished trust among younger members (Atto, 2011). This is not merely a generational conflict — it reflects a broader failure of institutional renewal and legitimacy.

Marginalized Younger Generation

Today, many young Syriacs/Assyrians in Europe possess academic qualifications, fluency in the dominant societal languages, and experience with democratic organizational practices and digital tools. Yet, they struggle to access key decision-making arenas — such as parish councils, cultural boards, and political committees. As a result, cultural heritage risks stagnation rather than evolving in step with contemporary realities (Atto, 2011).

New Global Order as an Opportunity

Digitalization, transnational networks, and artificial intelligence have created new arenas for identity formation and leadership. The younger generation has the potential to build bridges between tradition and modernity — organizing through digital platforms that transcend national borders. If entrusted with the authority to shape new institutional models, this generation could restore the diaspora’s cultural and political relevance within a globalized context (Floridi, 2014; Castells, 2000).

Time for Leadership Transition Is Now

To preserve cultural heritage and secure the future of the diaspora, a proactive and structural transfer of power to younger leaders is now imperative. Symbolic gestures are insufficient — real influence must be conferred through institutional reforms, intergenerational mentorship, and formal recognition of new competencies. As Haninke (2015) aptly noted: We cannot move forward while looking backward.

Conclusion

The Suryoye diaspora stands at a crossroads. Without structural renewal, its institutions risk becoming obsolete, losing the engagement and optimism of the younger generation. A paradigmatic shift in leadership is therefore essential. While the contributions of the elder generation deserve honor, the future must belong to those who understand it — and are capable of shaping it.

Glossary of Key Terms

• Diaspora: A population living outside its ancestral homeland while maintaining cultural ties to it.
• Authoritarian leadership style: A model of leadership characterized by control, hierarchy, and obedience, rather than dialogue and participation.
• Internalized orientalism: A concept by Edward Said describing how marginalized or colonized groups unconsciously adopt the oppressive frameworks of their colonizers.
• Clientelism: A system where power is maintained through personal loyalty rather than formal institutions or merit.
• Nepotism: The practice of favoring relatives or friends in organizational or power structures.
• Transnational networks: Social, cultural, or political networks that extend across multiple national borders.

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