For several decades, the Assyrian/Syriac diaspora has built an extensive network of associations, cultural organisations, church institutions and social networks. These institutions have played a vital role in preserving language, identity, history and a sense of community in a life shaped by migration and geographical dispersion. Yet an important question deserves greater attention: how can we develop organisations that are founded not only on personal relationships and historical loyalties, but also on lasting institutional trust?
Ultimately, this is a question of cultural transformation. Adopting new statutes, introducing financial audits or modernising administrative procedures is not enough. Building sustainable institutions also requires a change in how leadership, responsibility, loyalty and democratic participation are understood.
When Personal Relationships Become More Important Than an Institution’s Mission
In societies and communities where family ties, personal connections and social relationships play a central role, the question of who knows whom can sometimes carry more weight than the rules themselves. Such relationships can create strong bonds of solidarity, but they can also limit organisational development.
When personal relationships dominate decision-making, loyalty to individuals may become more important than commitment to an organisation’s mission. Positions of trust can then come to be regarded as personal positions of influence rather than time-limited responsibilities entrusted to individuals.
A mature institutional culture, by contrast, is based on the principle that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of family background, social standing, church affiliation or personal connections.
This does not mean that family ties and traditional forms of community should be weakened. On the contrary, they are valuable social resources. The challenge is to complement them with a broader sense of institutional loyalty, in which the common good sometimes takes precedence over private interests.
Consider, for example, a situation in which a close relative of a board member applies for financial assistance from an association. A well-functioning institution does not necessarily have to reject the application. However, conflict-of-interest rules must be respected, and the board member concerned must withdraw from the decision-making process. It is the rules, not personal relationships, that must determine the outcome.
Loyalty Must Not Be Confused with Obedience
One of the most important conditions for democratic development is the ability to distinguish between loyalty and obedience.
Being loyal to an organisation does not mean having to support every decision made by its leadership. A member can be deeply committed to an organisation’s future while criticising its board. An employee can care about their workplace while pointing out shortcomings in its operations. A younger member can respect senior leaders while proposing new ways of working.
This is not necessarily a sign of disrespect. On the contrary, it can be an expression of responsibility.
When criticism is interpreted as a personal attack, organisations risk developing a culture of silence. Members learn that remaining quiet is safer than asking difficult questions. Over time, this weakens both democracy and the institution’s ability to identify and correct mistakes.
A strong organisational culture must therefore make room for a simple but important principle: I respect you as a person, but that does not mean I have to agree with your decision.
Civil Courage Must Be Institutionally Protected
It is easy to encourage people to show civil courage and speak up when something is wrong. But courage cannot be demanded of individuals alone. Structures must also exist to protect those who dare to speak out.
If a member risks losing their social network, responsibilities or opportunities for cooperation after criticising an influential individual or family, it becomes difficult to expect openness.
Organisations therefore need effective mechanisms for accountability and internal scrutiny. These may include independent nomination committees, clear conflict-of-interest rules, whistleblowing channels, external auditors, protection against retaliation and regular membership meetings where critical voices are also given an opportunity to be heard.
Civil courage should not depend solely on the personal bravery of individuals. It must become a natural and protected part of organisational culture.
At the same time, constructive criticism needs to be valued more highly. Those who identify financial risks, question inefficient practices or propose improvements should be regarded as assets, not adversaries.
The Ability to Disagree Without Becoming Enemies
Another important challenge is to develop a culture in which disagreement does not automatically lead to personal conflict.
In a democratic environment, it is natural for people to hold different views on how shared objectives should be achieved. Problems arise when disagreements over substantive issues turn into personal disputes and critical opinions are interpreted as attacks on the community as a whole.
Organisations therefore need to develop respectful forms of debate. Criticism should be directed at decisions and actions, not at people’s dignity. Arguments should be presented and addressed, and those who are criticised should have an opportunity to respond. Following a legitimate vote, it must also be possible to accept the majority’s decision without depriving the minority of its right to express its views.
An organisation does not become strong because everyone thinks alike. It becomes strong when people can disagree and still continue working together.
This is particularly important in a diaspora whose members live in different countries, belong to different church traditions and have diverse experiences of society and organisational life.
The Institution Must Be Greater Than Its Leaders
An association is not its chairperson. A foundation is not its board chair. A newspaper is not its editor-in-chief. In the same way, a church or cultural institution is greater than the individuals who happen to lead it at a particular time.
When an institution becomes too closely identified with a single leader, any change in leadership can become a potential source of conflict. This creates dependency on individuals and makes generational transition more difficult.
Leadership should instead be understood as a position of trust, carrying clearly defined responsibilities and, where appropriate, time-limited mandates. A leader should not primarily be judged by how long they manage to retain their position, but by what they have built during their term of office.
An institution demonstrates its true strength when it can continue to develop even after a respected leader has stepped down.
From Fear of Criticism to a Culture of Self-Reflection
A sustainable organisation must also be capable of examining itself. Following a major project, its leadership should report not only on what succeeded, but also on what did not work, which objectives were not achieved and what needs to change.
There is a fundamental difference between asking who made a mistake and examining which weaknesses in the organisation’s working methods allowed that mistake to occur.
The latter creates better conditions for learning and development.
The same principle should apply to the digital public sphere. Social media can encourage participation, but they can also amplify rumours, personal attacks and destructive conflicts. Organisations and their representatives therefore need to defend a culture of debate in which factual claims can be substantiated, inaccuracies corrected and people treated with respect.
Trust Must Be Earned
No organisation can demand trust simply by referring to its history, its leaders or its good intentions. Institutional trust must be built through action.
It is therefore far more credible to say: Here you can examine our financial statements, our decisions, our operational results and our rules. Hold us accountable.
The goal is not blind trust, but trust that can be scrutinised.
This is a crucial distinction. Personal trust is often based on knowing the people who lead an organisation. Institutional trust is based on confidence in how the organisation operates, even when one does not personally know those making the decisions.
The Assyrian/Syriac diaspora does not have to choose between tradition and modernity, between family and institution, or between community and individual integrity. These values can coexist. The family can remain a source of security, the church a bearer of language and culture, and associations a foundation for social solidarity. But built upon these networks, there must also be institutions characterised by fairness, transparency, competence and shared responsibility.
The real cultural transformation begins when criticism is no longer regarded as a threat to the community, but as a means of protecting it. It begins when people are valued for their integrity and competence, rather than solely for their connections or background.
Community without civil courage risks becoming conformism. Civil courage without community risks becoming individualism. The challenge is to bring strong communal bonds together with individual integrity and clear institutional rules.
It is this combination that can give the diaspora a more sustainable future.
Sources and Further Reading – Article 1
- Bo Rothstein, Social Traps and the Problem of Trust: Theories of Institutional Design (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
- Bo Rothstein and Jan Teorell, “What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions,” Governance, 21:2 (2008), pp. 165–190.
- Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
From Words to Action – How the Assyrian/Syriac Diaspora Can Build Stronger Institutions
From Words to Action – How the Assyrian/Syriac Diaspora Can Build Stronger Institutions
Denho BarMourad-Özmen
The Assyrian/Syriac diaspora possesses considerable human, cultural and economic resources. Over several generations, its members have established associations, churches, cultural organisations, media outlets and international networks. Many of these initiatives have played a decisive role in preserving identity and creating a sense of belonging for people living far from their historical homeland.
Yet one question is becoming increasingly important for the future: how can these resources be transformed into sustainable institutions capable of surviving individual leaders, internal disagreements and generational transitions?
This requires more than good intentions. It calls for a shared understanding of responsibility, transparency, leadership and cooperation. Above all, organisations must move away from dependence on individual personalities and build structures that can function independently of whoever happens to be in charge.
Transparency Is the Foundation of Credibility
One of the most important prerequisites for institutional development is financial and organisational transparency.
Members and donors must be able to understand how an organisation’s resources are used, what decisions are made and what results its activities achieve. Financial statements, annual reports and independent audits should therefore be standard features of organisational life.
This is not merely about meeting formal requirements. Transparency is a way of showing respect for members and safeguarding the trust they have placed in an organisation.
Following every major decision, an organisation should be able to explain what was decided, why the decision was made, what financial consequences it entails and who is responsible for implementing it.
Annual reports should also include both achievements and failures. An organisation that never acknowledges its mistakes risks prioritising its public image over its own development.
Transparency does not automatically create trust, but it makes it possible to examine whether that trust is justified.
Leadership Is a Responsibility, not a Possession
One of the most important questions facing diaspora organisations is how leadership and power should be managed over time.
Positions of trust should not be treated as personal positions that individuals are entitled to retain for as long as possible. They should be understood as time-limited responsibilities, carrying a clear obligation towards the membership.
This requires a different understanding of success. A leader should not primarily be judged by how many years they have served on a board, but by the results they have achieved, the opportunities they have created for others and the structures they leave behind.
Time-limited mandates, clear succession plans, regular organisational evaluations and leadership training can all contribute to this development.
A truly successful leader builds an organisation that can continue to function and thrive even after their own term of office has ended.
Young People Must Be Given Real Influence
Generational transition is perhaps one of the most important challenges facing the diaspora.
Young Assyrians and Syriacs who have grown up in Sweden and other Western countries often have experiences, educational backgrounds and skills that differ from those of previous generations. They are generally more familiar with digital communication, international networks and new forms of organisation. Many have also pursued education in law, economics, social sciences, technology and education.
This expertise represents a considerable asset, but it must be put to meaningful use.
It is not enough to declare at ceremonial occasions that young people are the future. They must be given access to genuine decision-making processes, financial resources and concrete areas of responsibility.
One practical approach would be to establish youth councils with their own budgets and clearly defined mandates. Such councils could give young people practical experience in organisational democracy, project management, financial administration and strategic planning.
A future youth academy could also provide training in leadership, ethics, human rights, conflict resolution, critical thinking, digital security and institutional governance.
The difference between symbolic and genuine youth participation is substantial. It is one thing to say that young people must take responsibility. It is quite another to give them the resources, authority and opportunity to make decisions.
Mentorship Can Bring Generations Together
Generational transition does not have to lead to conflict between older and younger members.
The older generation possesses historical experience, knowledge of how organisations were established and valuable networks. The younger generation often brings new perspectives, digital skills and experience gained through education and professional life in contemporary society.
A structured mentorship programme could bring these resources together.
Experienced organisational representatives could, for example, mentor younger project managers and share their knowledge. At the same time, younger participants could contribute expertise in digital communication, project development and new organisational methods.
In this way, generational differences become an asset rather than an obstacle.
The essential requirement is that mentorship be based on mutual respect. The experience of older generations should be valued, but it must not become an argument for keeping younger generations away from meaningful influence.
Joint Projects Can Bridge Organisational Divides
The Assyrian/Syriac diaspora is geographically and organisationally fragmented. Its members live in different countries, belong to different church traditions and participate in organisations shaped by distinct historical experiences and priorities.
Nevertheless, there are many areas in which shared interests could bring people together.
One practical way of building trust is to undertake joint projects that cross geographical, ecclesiastical and organisational boundaries.
These could include an international digital cultural heritage archive, a joint language initiative, scholarships for young students, a youth conference, a research project or a global professional platform through which specialists and academics can share their expertise.
Such initiatives do not need to resolve every internal disagreement. Their most important purpose is to create positive experiences of cooperation.
When people successfully complete a joint project, trust grows. This creates better conditions for future collaboration and can gradually strengthen networks between organisations.
From Competing Groups to Cooperative Networks
Organisational diversity does not have to be a problem. Different associations and institutions can have distinct missions while contributing to the same broader objectives.
The problem arises when competition between organisations becomes more important than the work, they were established to carry out.
Rather than constantly asking which organisation should represent the entire community, it would be more constructive to identify which issues require joint efforts and where organisations can complement one another.
A network of independent organisations can sometimes be more effective than a single centralised structure. The condition is that cooperation must be based on clear agreements, mutual respect and shared principles.
There is therefore no absolute need to establish another overarching organisation. A more realistic starting point could be a voluntary common principles document to which participating organisations commit themselves.
Such a document could be based on ten fundamental principles:
- Transparency: Financial and organisational decisions must be open to scrutiny.
- Equal treatment: The same rules must apply to all members.
- Conflict-of-interest management: Clear procedures must govern personal interests and potential conflicts.
- Time-limited and accountable leadership: Leadership responsibilities must be transferable.
- Protection of constructive criticism: Members must be free to express legitimate criticism.
- Accountability and independent scrutiny: Leaders and institutions must be answerable for their decisions.
- Meaningful youth participation: Young people must be given genuine influence and responsibility.
- Knowledge-based decision-making: Research, expertise and documentation must be valued.
- Cooperation across organisational and ecclesiastical boundaries: Shared interests should take precedence over unnecessary divisions.
- The common good: Collective resources must be used in accordance with the organisation’s mission, not for personal interests.
These principles could serve as a shared ethical standard without replacing existing organisations.
Social Media Requires Greater Responsibility
Digital development has transformed public discussion within the diaspora. Social media makes it possible to distribute information rapidly, discuss shared concerns and reach people across the world.
However, the same platforms can also intensify personal disputes, spread rumours and amplify unfounded accusations.
The digital public sphere therefore needs clearer standards for responsible communication. Factual claims should be supported by sources, people who are criticised should have an opportunity to respond, and inaccuracies should be corrected openly.
It is equally important to distinguish legitimate criticism from personal attacks. A vibrant public debate must be able to accommodate different opinions while remaining grounded in respect and objectivity.
Social media should not be used merely as a platform for reactions and conflicts. It can also become a tool for sharing knowledge, promoting education and encouraging constructive cooperation.
From Historical Heritage to Future Institutions
The Assyrian/Syriac diaspora has a rich historical and cultural heritage to preserve. But this heritage cannot be sustained solely through commemorative activities and traditional ceremonies. It must also be passed on through functioning institutions, education, research and long-term investment in the next generation.
Churches can continue to serve as important carriers of language, culture and social solidarity. Associations can strengthen their work in identity, education and civic engagement. Cultural organisations can improve the documentation of history and traditions. Professional networks can contribute expertise and international connections.
The decisive factor is that these activities must be supported by sustainable structures and clearly defined responsibilities.
The diaspora also needs to develop a broader understanding of competence and representation. People should be valued according to what they can contribute, the experience they possess and the responsibilities they are willing to undertake – not merely according to the family, association or church community from which they come.
This does not mean that historical identity should be weakened. On the contrary, a strong cultural identity can coexist with an open and professional organisational culture.
A Shared Future Requires Shared Responsibility
Long-term development cannot be achieved through a single decision or the efforts of one organisation. It requires numerous small but consistent changes: a board that publishes its financial accounts, a leader who hands over responsibility, a young person who is entrusted with a meaningful role, an association that acknowledges a mistake, and several organisations that choose to cooperate despite earlier disagreements.
It is through such actions that trust is built and institutions become stronger.
The Assyrian/Syriac diaspora does not lack the resources needed for development. It already has people with knowledge, experience, education and commitment across many parts of the world. The greater challenge is to organise these resources in ways that create lasting collective capacity.
The strength of the future will not be measured solely by the number of associations, members or events. It will also be measured by the ability of institutions to manage resources responsibly, develop new leaders, make effective use of young people’s expertise and cooperate across boundaries.
It is time to move from personality-dependent organisations to sustainable institutions, from competition to cooperation, and from symbolic youth engagement to genuine responsibility.
The most important question facing the diaspora is therefore not who will lead the next organisation, but what kind of institutions we want to leave behind for future generations.
Sources and Further Reading – Article 2
- Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
- Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
- Bo Rothstein, The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust, and Inequality in International Perspective (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
- Bo Rothstein, Social Traps and the Problem of Trust: Theories of Institutional Design (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
