Assad: Reforming Party and State

It is war on Syria.

That has become the main feature of what is happening in the country. This does not in the least mean that there isn’t a major domestic problem, or that the regime isn’t in need of radical changes, economic and administrative, as well as political.

Such changes in turn require fundamental amendments to the constitution. Nobody still thinks that this can be ignored.

But there is something hysterical about the escalation to which Syria’s foreign adversaries have resorted, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov observed. And that forces the international dimension onto center-stage.

This has a big impact on the course of the ongoing protests in Syria. Many activists have begun to openly voice their rejection of the militarization wave that has swept over the opposition in many parts of the country. They also largely reject many leaders of opposition groups active abroad, who seem to have lost any last semblance of independence. Their agenda has fallen hostage to the decisions of countries that sponsor them and provide them with political, financial, media, and even material support.

At home, people who have visited President Bashar Assad affirm that he is aware of many realities. Some say he has learned much about his country in the past year, from the intensive meetings he continues to hold with groups of young people, local leaders, and members of the public. These meetings have familiarized him with many issues and made him appreciate that the crisis is more serious than state officials publicly concede.

Assad has indicated clearly that the Baath Party needs a serious shakeup and sweeping changes extending from its mentality and modus operandi to its leadership bodies. He has also indicated that the state and all its institutions require a thorough overhaul that will take time to achieve and that it is no longer possible to tolerate its current debilitated condition or the laxity which has turned corruption into the norm in everything that touches people’s lives.

In the area of political freedoms, Assad is more conscious of the need to allow all sections of the public means by which to express their thoughts, take their own initiatives, and bring the behavior of the state and its officials under proper scrutiny.

But while tacitly acknowledging the need to make fundamental changes in the area of political and media freedoms, the Syrian president does not conceal his fears. He is wary of attempts to turn the media in Syria into a replica of major outlets elsewhere that are bankrolled by politically-motivated sponsors.

In this regard, he impresses on his visitors the notion of Syria’s national and pan-Arab frames of reference. He rejects any attempt to foist a “Syria first” slogan on Syrians – whether by oppositionists, regime loyalists, or Arab or Western countries. That is tantamount to inviting Syria to turn in on itself as a step toward building a relationship of dependency, outwardly economic in nature but political in substance, that would strip Syria of its clout in the region.

Assad points out, here, that Syria’s problem with the outside world, which has persisted since the October 1973 war, is essentially its position on peace with Israel. Namely, it is Syria’s refusal to do a separate deal that would recover part of its occupied territory and abandon the Palestinians to their fate at the hands of a merciless Israel and its Western and Arab backers.

Therefore, he emphasizes to his visitors his view that the reform process must proceed from a basis of holding firm to Syria’s position on the national question. That clearly means holding firm on foreign and defense policy, including maintaining cooperation with friendly countries such as Iran and Russia, and also a continuing commitment to stand by the forces of resistance in Lebanon and Palestine. There is a price to pay for that on more than one level.

But Assad knows that Syrians are now at the stage of asking the big question about the fate of their country. He is well aware that many of those who demonstrate in support of the reforms do so because they fear for Syria’s future. He is aware that some opposition supporters who have taken to the streets are afraid of a repeat of Iraq or Lebanon’s experiences in Syria. He also acknowledges that a majority of Syrians – including part of the opposition – have been alarmed by the behavior of Arab and Western countries and that Syrians generally are acutely averse to the idea of foreign control, occupation, or intervention.

Assad affirms to his visitors that the regime will continue taking steps toward reform. These reforms will begin with a referendum on a new constitution, the formation of a new government with real authority over most domestic affairs, and measures that reflect the regime’s commitment to lifting curbs on freedom in a very different way to the past.

He indicates that the Baath Party congress will send out the necessary signals about ruling party members’ willingness to give up many of their gains and cede their privileges within the state to the rest of the population. That would be big step, in his mind.

Most of Assad’s opponents do not believe that this is serious, but they also differ. Some think the existing administration in Syria is incapable of proceeding with reforms. Others think the task of reform cannot be entrusted to the one responsible for the corruption and failure. A third group thinks both Assad and the Baath party should leave power and let other groups undertake the reform process.

Amid this debate, there are opposition groups which no longer want to confront the regime with anything but weapons. That means blood flowing upon blood. It could be a tempting prospect for those within the Syrian regime who reject change.

Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.