The formation of a committee to reconsider the emergency law in Syria increased the frustration following President Bashar al-Assad’s speech. It is assigned to “study and draw up a legislation guaranteeing the security of the country, the dignity of the citizens and the fight against terrorism, in preparation for the lifting of the state of emergency,” as it was stated by the official SANA news agency.
The reasons behind the frustration are numerous, the first of which being the fact that the committee was formed by the national command of the ruling Baath Party, which means that the political authority assigned itself – and not an independent body – to look into the ending of a state from which the authority is considered to be the primary beneficiary.
Secondly, entrusting this task to the national command consecrated the intertwinement between the state and the party, at a time when this is an issue which the oppositionists are insisting on settling for being the greatest obstacle facing the building of a state of institutions in Syria.
The third reason behind the frustration is related to the saying: “Committees are the tombs of the causes,” which is present before all those advocating reform. As for the reassurance of the supporters of the authority regarding the fact that the Baath Party conference in 2005 placed all these issues among others on the table of discussion, it only enhanced the feeling that the authority is insisting on deferring the important reforms to a time which may never come. So far, all that was seen was the use of the pretext of foreign challenges to justify the non-implementation of the reforms, knowing that foreign challenges are the rule in our region, and that their absence is the exception.
Fourthly, in his speech two days ago, Al-Assad did not point to any palpable reformatory step, which leaves the door wide open before the elusion of anything that might have been mentioned during the previous “appearances” of his spokespersons, as the president attributed the events in Syria to a “foreign conspiracy,” into which some Syrians might have been led “based on good intentions.”
The conspiratorial character which the president gave to the protests, allows the state apparatuses to hold on to the security option as the only tool to handle the developments, while this option immediately materialized in the shootings that targeted the peaceful march in Lattakia a few hours after the end of the president’s speech, as well as in the continuation of the arrests at a wide scale.
What increases the bleakness of the image and the depth of the frustration, is the oppositionists’ ongoing talk about the “wasting of the opportunities” and the “blocking of the road before reform” following the People’s Assembly speech, as this speech did not point to any possible dialogue between the authority and the leaders of the protesters. As for the dispatch of security figures to inform the Daraa population about the measures adopted by the political command to prevent additional violence, it does not herald anything positive.
One might claim that the major problem facing the rule in Syria - and in other Arab countries which preceded and will follow it down the path of the “incidents” - is the authority’s non-recognition of the presence of equal components with which it should engage in dialogue to maintain peace.
Democratic pluralistic rule and the transition of power are “taboos” that should not be tackled out of fear of allowing the enemy to smell internal discord and conflicts. However, one must realize that taking to the streets in our Arab countries where security forces are heavily armed with live ammunition and lack tear gas bombs, is not a picnic, and that whoever takes to the street will be in dire need for its most basic rights. In this context, foreign conspiracies are the pretexts of those who do not see these needs.
The reasons behind the frustration are numerous, the first of which being the fact that the committee was formed by the national command of the ruling Baath Party, which means that the political authority assigned itself – and not an independent body – to look into the ending of a state from which the authority is considered to be the primary beneficiary.
Secondly, entrusting this task to the national command consecrated the intertwinement between the state and the party, at a time when this is an issue which the oppositionists are insisting on settling for being the greatest obstacle facing the building of a state of institutions in Syria.
The third reason behind the frustration is related to the saying: “Committees are the tombs of the causes,” which is present before all those advocating reform. As for the reassurance of the supporters of the authority regarding the fact that the Baath Party conference in 2005 placed all these issues among others on the table of discussion, it only enhanced the feeling that the authority is insisting on deferring the important reforms to a time which may never come. So far, all that was seen was the use of the pretext of foreign challenges to justify the non-implementation of the reforms, knowing that foreign challenges are the rule in our region, and that their absence is the exception.
Fourthly, in his speech two days ago, Al-Assad did not point to any palpable reformatory step, which leaves the door wide open before the elusion of anything that might have been mentioned during the previous “appearances” of his spokespersons, as the president attributed the events in Syria to a “foreign conspiracy,” into which some Syrians might have been led “based on good intentions.”
The conspiratorial character which the president gave to the protests, allows the state apparatuses to hold on to the security option as the only tool to handle the developments, while this option immediately materialized in the shootings that targeted the peaceful march in Lattakia a few hours after the end of the president’s speech, as well as in the continuation of the arrests at a wide scale.
What increases the bleakness of the image and the depth of the frustration, is the oppositionists’ ongoing talk about the “wasting of the opportunities” and the “blocking of the road before reform” following the People’s Assembly speech, as this speech did not point to any possible dialogue between the authority and the leaders of the protesters. As for the dispatch of security figures to inform the Daraa population about the measures adopted by the political command to prevent additional violence, it does not herald anything positive.
One might claim that the major problem facing the rule in Syria - and in other Arab countries which preceded and will follow it down the path of the “incidents” - is the authority’s non-recognition of the presence of equal components with which it should engage in dialogue to maintain peace.
Democratic pluralistic rule and the transition of power are “taboos” that should not be tackled out of fear of allowing the enemy to smell internal discord and conflicts. However, one must realize that taking to the streets in our Arab countries where security forces are heavily armed with live ammunition and lack tear gas bombs, is not a picnic, and that whoever takes to the street will be in dire need for its most basic rights. In this context, foreign conspiracies are the pretexts of those who do not see these needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment