The history of modern Syria is often divided into brief periods, relating to a specific topic, such as authoritarianism in the early years of independence, the emergence of nationalism after the end of World War I, and so on. This thesis is the end result of a careful reading and application of two particular assertions made by the late Albert Hourani, specifically that, as historians, we often divide up the past into somewhat perilous periodisiations; and that even if there were no 'Syrian' people, the Syrian lands would still be ripe with problems. Thus, this thesis examines the effects of rule by non-Syrians, then traces these effects through the first thirty years of independence. These 'non-Syrians,' especially the French, made several broken promises, which led to a very specific desire to see Syria ruled by Syrians. While the rule of the various military governments and their successors from 1946–1969 was by no means free of strife, it could be argued that by 1970 the only option for any semblance of security and stability was the authoritarian rule of Hafiz al-Asad. The present work is an attempt to break up the periodisations to show that indeed, whether under French or Ottoman control, Syrian politics were problematic, and, unfortunately, a precursor to the repressive regime that has been in place in the country since 1970.