 Some believe , Avraham Ben @-@ Tzur being the most prominent writer on the subject , that the Ba 'athist ideology preached in Syria after the coup should be referred to as neo @-@ Ba 'athism since it has nothing to do with the ideology 's classic form espoused by Aflaq , Bitar and the Aflaqites in general . Munif al @-@ Razzaz agreed with the theory , stating that from 1961 onwards , there existed two Ba 'ath parties – " the military Ba 'ath Party and the Ba 'ath Party , and real power lay with the former . " He further noted that the military Ba 'ath ( as " paraphrased by Martin Seymour " ) " was and remains Ba 'athist only in name ; that it was and remains little more than a military clique with civilian hangers @-@ on ; and that from the initial founding of the Military Committee by disgruntled Syrian officers exiled in Cairo in 1959 , the chain of events and the total corruption of Ba 'athism proceeded with intolerable logic . " Bitar agreed , stating that the 1966 coup " marked the end of Ba 'athist politics in Syria . " Aflaq shared the sentiment , and stated ; " I no longer recognise my party ! " . 
