Following the announcement by the ruling Baath Party in Syria that its 11th Regional Conference would take place next February, the first reaction was that the party's move came too late, having been overtaken by the pace of the events. In truth, the protests taking place in Syria would not have broken out, dragging entire areas into repression, violence and bloodshed, had the party still been in touch with ordinary people, as well as the changes that hit the regional and international arenas. No doubt, parties often suffer the same fate as people. They grow old, age and calcify, and become set in their archaic ways, discourses and vested interests. In such conditions, every call for revision and change become a kind of treason and blasphemy that must be nipped in the bud. Further complicating matters also is the fact that the barons of the security services, with their paranoia and heavy-handed approach, control the decision making process in the Party – a party which has become a bureaucratic machine that grants jobs and concessions, and appoints ministers and MPs, all on the basis of absolute and blind loyalty. And what transpired for the Party in Syria also applies to the parties that ruled near and far away countries, on the basis of their alleged monopoly over patriotism, truth and solutions. It can be said that the Party in Syria has not read the message coming out from the collapsed Berlin Wall, the vanquished Soviet Union and the routed socialist camp. For before those developments were defeats for certain states, they were a setback for an entire model, its logic, mechanisms and various degrees and shades included. The only response that came from President Hafez al-Assad was his decision to fight alongside the international coalition for the liberation of Kuwait. Back then, Assad saved his country from isolation and sent out a message that Syria is not a prisoner of its relationship with Moscow and Tehran, and that it is indeed able to engage the United States, negotiate with Israel, and maintain its ties with the moderate Arabs. But for its part, the Party did not carry out a comprehensive analysis of the developments nor were any lessons subsequently learned. At the beginning of this century, the Party missed a great opportunity. If it had dealt properly with the Damascus Spring, the country would not have been dragged in this manner to the Arab Spring. The demands raised by the Damascus Spring were limited and did not go beyond having some windows opened. The regime was strong and stable, and could have leaned on the popularity of the young president to offer limited concessions that would have expanded freedoms and reduced the leverage of security services over the daily lives of the people, allowing new blood to trickle to the state and the Party. But the network made of the Baath Party and the security services aborted this opportunity, with a triumphalist victory that would soon lead to more tension in society. All this then precipitated the current crisis. The Party would subsequently undergo a difficult test with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Battling the American invasion prompted Syria to facilitate the passage of jihadist elements to Iraq, with the prices this entailed for Syria both at home and abroad. And afterwards, the Baath state would enter into an alliance with the same forces that led the de-Baathification of Iraq. Under the banner of resistance and defiance, the Party would then join forces with Islamist groups in neighboring countries, whilst retaining its absolute hostility to the Islamists within and not tolerating liberal and democratic forces in Syria. One can even say that the Party underestimated the Sunni-Shiite clash in the region, which was exacerbated by the manner in which Saddam Hussein was executed, and by the assassination of Rafik Hariri. The Party also overlooked internal sensitivities over going too far in the alliance with Iran, and did not heed the lessons inherent in seeing the page turned on one-party rule, as Iraqi, Turkish and Lebanese voters repeatedly headed to the ballot boxes in elections whose results were not cooked in advance. No doubt, many efforts were undertaken on the economic level, in conjunction with talk of seeking inspiration from the Chinese model, but without paying attention to the significant differences in the two cases. In this vein, the previous Party conference in 2005 approved the transition from planned economy to social market economy. But what is certain is that the fixation over the regional role and fear of change came ahead in the list of priorities. When the new Party conference will be held, the participants will face a tough question that they for long sought to avoid. The question is whether it is still possible to save Syria without the Party forfeiting Article Eight of the constitution which, since 1963, has made the Party the ‘leader of the state and society'. The answer to this is known, but I wish the Party had made such a concession at the start of the protests, in conjunction with a national unity cabinet led by a non-partisan figure. In any case, a lesson learned late is better than a lesson not learned at all, especially when the ongoing protests have sent harsh messages that cannot be ignored.
