The Syrian oppositionists are holding numerous conferences abroad to reach a unified representative body, a single headline, and a common program. So far, they are still feeling their way through the formation of this body without coming up with a formula that is convincing to them firstly, to the protest movement secondly and to the interlocutors abroad thirdly. This slowness in reaching such a formula is raising concerns about the ability of the Syrian oppositionists to constitute a capable alternative against the backdrop of the regime change slogan. Voices have thus started emerging inside and outside of Syria, reflecting this concern and this impatience toward time running out without the instatement of the desired structure. This concern is justified, not because the unity of the Syrian opposition is facing difficulties and complications, but because the Syrian regime is proceeding with its security operations and what they feature in terms of killing and destruction. Yet, these operations are still mainly confronted in a peaceful way. In other words, the current peaceful action is being subjected to fierce oppression, in addition to violations committed against individuals and groups. However, the insistence on the peaceful protests option might collapse with the continuation of this oppression, and this in itself may be what is sought by the regime through the use of this excessive power, as it is aware of the fact that if the opposition were to proceed down that path, the protest action will not only lose the field confrontation, but also the political one. The Syrian oppositionists holding conferences abroad are mostly figures enjoying credibility and political expertise. They are likely aware of the nature of the great challenge they are facing, and many of them spoke about the factors still preventing the formation of their unified representative body. Some of them, primarily from the traditional opposition and its parties, mentioned personal sensitivities which had been dragging for years, and a lack of trust still affecting the relations. This is only natural in light of the previous decades of oppression, maneuvering and the security exploitation of some in this traditional opposition. In parallel, there seems to be temporary and common political factors bringing this opposition with all its factions together: The peacefulness of the protests, the changing of the regime, and the establishment of a civil, pluralistic and democratic state respecting human rights and freedoms and treating all the Syrians equally. However, the divergence at the level of the details is natural, rather necessary for a sound democratic and pluralistic life, even inside the opposition's representative body. Indeed, without differences and attempts to shed light on one's own viewpoints, plurality has no meaning during the current stage and democracy will have none during the upcoming stage, following the establishment of the new regime. This does not justify the delay affecting the quick formation of this body, rather points to the existence of a domestic process in parallel to the conferences being held abroad and enjoying these specificities. Those who are taking to the streets on a daily basis, facing the bullets and the cannons and risking their lives which might be ended and their freedoms which might be hijacked upon their arrest, are not giving much consideration to the belonging of the person walking alongside them. They are not showing reluctance, even when they know that so and so is Islamist, secular or from another sect. They are taking to the streets to voice a unified slogan, and this is the secret behind their steadfastness and the continuation of their action which is entering its seventh month despite all the hardships. This is also the first political lesson which must be detected by those participating in the conferences, i.e. that the actual command of the Syrian action resides on the domestic arena and that any formula for the formation of a body on the external arena draws its efficiency from the provision of the right circumstances allowing the internal front to proceed. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that the rule is denying the political value of the internal opposition and depicting it as being an “armed gang” that is betraying the country, at a time when it is dealing with some in the external opposition as being part of the national opposition.
