Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Abstract 

This study critically analyses the discourse of two conflict parties in the Syrian civil war, the Syrian regime and the jihadist group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). It supplements this by examining HTS actions and religious management. This examines, firstly, what the discourse of these conflict actors says about whether jihadist conflicts can be resolved through peaceful means; and secondly, the implications of this discourse for the resolution of jihadist conflicts.

Critical discourse analysis, informed by Hjelm and Fairclough, finds that regime discourse reinforces the narrative that jihadist conflicts cannot be resolved peacefully, in order to pursue its own goals, such as legitimising its violence and delegitimising opposition. In contrast, HTS seeks to portray itself as having evolved from its jihadist roots. Qualitative analysis of various texts and existing research especially by Drevon & Haenni finds that HTS has changed in response to non-ideological factors such as local pressure, including in religious management. This provides a case study for whether jihadist groups can engage with conflict resolution.

This suggests certain jihadist groups, at least theoretically, can evolve over time and be pragmatically motivated. This in turn opens up the possibility of political accommodation, and sheds light on whether jihadist conflicts can be resolved peacefully. 

Caveat:

This thesis represents only the personal views and study of the author.

Keywords:

Jihadism, conflict resolution, Syria, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, Critical Discourse Analysis, terrorism