Faisal Abbas 
Most Arab countries have failed to make the diversity management process a success in their societies, religious, sectarian or ethnic. Certainly, the main link in the process of making this sustainable failure is related to the loss of these countries as an effective democratic system or within its minimum limits. Democracy is an irreversible condition in the success of the process of managing the diversity at various levels. Although some hesitant scientific definitions consider democracy not a binding condition, but, at the same time, it recognizes that democracy provides an ideal environment for the success of the diversity management process. In addition, historical experiences have shown, in a way that does not leave any doubt, and the occurrence of complete or relative failure of the diversity management path in its ideal form in every system of diminishing democracy in any way. This is because democracy is a basic guarantor of the rights and application of individuals, gives the same rights, without increasing or decreasing, to the members of the society in which it prevails. Hence, the democratic process seeks to secure effective mechanisms to resolve disputes of all kinds. It also facilitates the possibility of those involved in its path to accept their differences and carry out a fair management process for these differences. Whatever the non -democratic regimes sought to try to improve the performance of their diversity management, especially in relation to ethnicities and religions, and tried to enact laws that respect their diversity, and promote integration between them, but they will not succeed in being effective, to ensure the achievement of social justice and effective participation of all groups.
Diversity Management is a complex path of organizing (and coordinating) differences and differences between individuals and groups within a common geographical space. It is possible that this space can be very narrow, to be confined to the housing, workplace, or study place, and it can accommodate a society, village, city, or state. The main goal of the good management and success management in it is to enhance harmony and cooperation between the various parties because of its optimal way to invest diversity and benefit from it a positive and constructive factor. Diversity exceeds the issue of religion, doctrine, or ethnicity to reach the limits of social backgrounds and economic levels.
All colonists tried to offend the positive concept in managing the diversity and played on religious, ethnic and sectarian differences, to tighten their control over the geographical space that they seized. Hence, it facilitates the control of the invader, the occupier, the delegated, or the “protector” over the various components of the local community without trouble. On the other hand, the “patriotic” state that followed the era of colonialism in the Arab region, because of its authoritarian dye or electoral legitimacy, has proven that it was the greatest success in applying the policy of “diving” from the same colonialism, as the process of deepening social, religious, sectarian and ethnic cracks was the basic rule in its strategy for the tight disgrace to the destinies of its societies.
All colonists tried to offend the positive concept in managing the diversity
In Syria, although the French Mandate attempts between 1920 and 1945 to strengthen the interviews in society have failed, it was established for a kind of negative “consciousness” that invaded and inherited the mandate era locally, regionally and internationally, so it began to consolidate the divisions between Arabs and Kurds, between Christians and Muslims, and between Sunnis and Alevis. As for the rest of the chances of strengthening the division, they were not forgotten and neglected, but were worked on, on the sidelines of the main axes that adopted the major divisions. The father of the father and the son of the son of this diabolical process successfully established a half successful success. He contributed to strengthening this unfortunate success, the drawing of a good bloc in many of them behind a sustainable illusion that his companions insisted and promoted that the Syrians live in a homogeneous “mosaic” society, and that some of them love each other. This false feeling partially fueled the role of clerics from clients or from the existing power industry of all parties. The authority did not skimp on any of them, if he went out of the Arabized path that I planned for him, with a variety of distress.
The society entered the trap in its part or its entirety, and fell into the fragmentation hole. How not, and its members are citizens and are not citizens of what this phrase means from the concept that is still far from feeling and application? Rather, many of his symbols and his leaders contributed to enhancing the great illusion and lie that talk about homogeneity and harmony that the Syrian missed is not the result of his environment and his culture, but rather as a result of a systematic work by his rulers to enhance divisions and enable itself to dominate it and limit his natural human aspirations to live in peace and harmony based on a joint contract that sets a monument to the country before religion and the country before the clan. These priorities are not at all leading to the diminishing of the role of religion or the clan or other factors of discrimination and discrimination, God forbid, but rather it helps in promoting the concepts of religion and the clan and others in a national framework and citizens seeking to uphold the public interest in front of individual warring interests. It is necessary to move from the brutality administration, which has succeeded in developing the girls of its culture, the previous regime, to enhance the chances of the success of the diversity management. Is anyone responding?
