ABSTRACT
This chapter assesses the degree to which the Syrian regime may be characterized as sultanistic, using Chehabi and Linz's criteria, and how this contributes to blocking a transition to democracy. It focuses on the structural reasons why the non-violent protests in the beginning of the Uprising did not create a dynamic leading to a democratic transition. Although democracy is characterized by free and equal elections of a country's political authorities, democratic elections do not necessarily lead to democracy. The relative autonomy of state organizations in relation to the regime presupposes norms, which secures such a differentiation and gives the state organizations the possibility to organize their tasks with a degree of inner coherence and professionalism. In the sultanistic regime, persons are not important because of their formal positions, but only because they are personal assistants to the sultan. Modern sultans have usually come to power by heading a popular movement against traditional oligarchs.
