There is no doubt that President Bashar al-Assad wants to convince the Syrians he is adopting a unique experience. It is an attempt to change the regime from within, based on the orders of the head of the regime himself. This is due to the fact that what is being talked about – if what we are hearing is the actual inclination – is not just a mere “reform” of the regime. Indeed, the annulment of the Baath Party's monopolization of power, the opening of the door before pluralistic elections including presidential ones, and the liberation of the media outlets from the authority of the state so that they are allowed to decide what is permitted and what is prohibited and what could constitute a threat to the “country's security,” is not mere reform. It is a change, even a coup staged by the regime against itself with its own means and under its own supervision. And as it was put by oppositionist Lu'ay Hussein who questioned the intentions of the regime: “The authority wishes to impose the shape of the dialogue it wants, as it has become accustomed to imposing the shape of the oppression it wants.” However, far away from doubts, can we say that President Bashar al-Assad's regime is paving the way – with the steps it says it intends to adopt – for the birth of a new Syria? The consultative meeting held during the last few days at the Sahara Complex wanted to send a message in regard to the willingness to change to the point of staging a coup. And regardless of the quality of some of the attendees who were dubbed by colleague Talal Salman in As-Safir as being “the scribes and the Pharisees,” a clear sign was seen in the meeting: the picture of President Bashar al-Assad was not suspended above Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa's chair. If my memory does not betray me, this is the first time – not only during the term of the current Syrian president, but also that of his father – that a political meeting of any kind is held in Syria, without it being beneath the picture of the president. And this is not a normal event. What was also noticeable was that the convened “showed modesty” and decided to replace the term “consultative meeting” with that of dialogue conference or something of the sort, to show they respected the decision of the absentees and did not wish to monopolize the recommendations. Hence the allusion – in the closing statement – to the sustainment of the contacts with the different political forces on the domestic arena and abroad, in order to prepare for the national dialogue conference which will be held as soon as these contacts are completed and “in utter urgency.” We should also not forget that the viewers of the official Syrian television that was covering the speeches, heard for the first time ever expressions such as “the dismantlement of the security state”, “the annulment of Article 8” or the “release of the prisoners who have been detained for many years and are by the thousands.” The “reform” of a regime such as the one established by the Baath Party in Syria since 1966, with all its institutions and partisan, security, judicial and educational functions is not an easy task. At the same time, it constitutes a difficult test to the seriousness of the regime following the series of experiences and the disappointments with which the demands of the Syrian opposition were met, especially since 2000. Secondly, it is a test to the regime's ability to induce the promised change – even if it is truly willing and has honest intentions – in the face of the powerful security apparatuses. And what justifies these doubts that are circulated by prominent political sides inside and outside of Syria is the wide gap between the promises and commitments announced by President Bashar al-Assad in his last three speeches, and what he continued to perpetrate on the ground in various Syrian cities, in terms of killings, violations and arrests. A man called Mikhail Gorbachev once tried to “reform” a partisan machine that was running the Soviet Union and was very similar to the one with which the Baath Party is currently running the Syrian state. He dubbed this process “Glasnost,” which means “openness.” However, the ruling apparatuses in Moscow were neither ready nor prepared for such openness and the party collapsed along with the entire state and its affiliates, thus becoming part of history. There is no doubt that President Bashar al-Assad is aware of the meaning of the introduction of the term “reform” to the Syrian dictionary, as well as its possible costs. And through his decision to resort to surgery following the failure of the pain killers, he might have realized – owing to his medical experience – that it is the only option to convince the opposition of his seriousness and allow his stay at the head of the rule. As for the other and more dangerous possibility which is feared by many oppositionists who are questioning the seriousness of the promised reforms, it is that the regime is playing the time game while awaiting the passage of the rowdy internal and external storm it is facing, before going back to the way things used to be. However, this wager is unwise this time around.
