The Syrian opposition's woeful irrelevance
By Ammar Abdulhamid
Special to The Daily Star
Friday, September 17, 2004
One of the major problems of the nascent opposition movement in Syria is
its adoption of attitudes and modes of discourse very much reminiscent
of the regime it is supposedly opposing.
The Syrian opposition does not seek to justify
itself to the Syrian people or gain their support, and it fails to
provide a vision for change in the country, be it political, social or
economic. No wonder, then, that Syrians continue to be politically
apathetic and inclined to pinning their hopes on the ability of
President Bashar Assad to deliver on his long-promised reforms.
The state, and behind it the regime, remains
Syria's largest service provider. All important sectors in the country,
including oil, agriculture, industry, communications and education, are
under the regime's control. Despite a change in leadership in mid-2000,
when Assad took power, the regime has so far failed to deliver a vision
for change. The Syrian people are well aware that very little progress
has been achieved in the last four years. They tend to blame the coterie
surrounding the president for that, and have grown weary and dubious
regarding positive developments in the future.
So long as the opposition fails to fill the
leadership gap in Syria, the people, though they may not rally behind
the regime, will not do so behind the opposition, either. Apathy and
obscurantism are the victors in this situation. If it is to have any
future, therefore, the Syrian opposition needs to organize so that it
can draw out the principles, specific programs and young voices capable
of galvanizing popular support. In other words, the opposition needs to
seize the initiative.
By merely making demands on the regime to cancel
the state of emergency and expand the sphere of political participation,
opposition groups are ceding the initiative to a regime and state that
have clearly shown themselves neither capable of introducing change nor
really interested in doing so. Nothing could be more damaging to the
opposition than this minimalist approach.
This gap between words and deeds cannot be
filled, and the opposition in Syria will not be worthy of the name,
unless certain concrete steps are taken. Holding a national conference
on reform, for instance, is one long-overdue step. Opposition parties
need to get their act together, and there is no other way but through a
process of mutual dialogue, culminating in such an event.
The purpose of a conference would be to
facilitate the adoption of a specific platform and a vision for change
and reform, one that can satisfy the aspirations of all social strata.
Furthermore, this reformist vision needs to be packaged in such a way
that it can be understood and accepted by the Syrian people in their
religious, ethnic and political diversity.
More importantly, the conference should provide a
platform for new leaders to emerge, young leaders armed with specific
strategies meant to help them reach out to the Syrian people and build
up a following. As is the case in all other countries, and as has been
the case throughout history, people do not rally behind ghosts, but
behind specific issues, promises and personalities.
As things stand today, the only voices being
heard and the only faces visible belong to a generation that is no
longer credible or relevant in the eyes of a great majority of Syrians.
This is another reason why people prefer to give the regime the leeway
and excuses it needs, rather than risk anything by supporting an
opposition that does not seem to offer something new or really
different.
By continuing to neglect its responsibility to
explain and justify itself to the Syrian people, the opposition risks
perpetuating its irrelevance. If it continues to take its cues, as it
seems, from the existing political establishment, this will only
consecrate the opposition's continued political insignificance.
However, if the opposition wishes to outgrow
these limitations, it should be the one reaching out to exiled Syrian
communities abroad; it should be the one providing ideas and proposals
for specific reforms and policies that could be adopted by the Syrian
government or civil society; and it should be the one that shows it can
slowly but surely take charge of the country and lead it to a better
tomorrow. This is how credibility and popular support are cultivated.
This is what democratization is all about. If the opposition is
unwilling to take the risks involved in this process, then it is, in
fact, not an opposition at all.
But then, perhaps this is why opposition figures
are today tolerated by Syria's regime. Indeed, perhaps this is what the
opposition strategy is all about - grandstanding from a safe distance.
|