Before the spark in Daraa, which ignited the Syrian revolution, Al-Swaida witnessed incidents that were quickly contained, after President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma visited the area. The President did not visit Daraa after the incidents erupted there, young students were arrested and protesters killed, despite the fact that mediators had visited the town at the behest of the state and its blessing, and returned to the President with proposals that he initially approved. I continue today where I left off yesterday, and I ask, what happened? The mediators blame the family. Here, this does not mean the Assad family in particular, but rather the extended family, or clan, as the majority of the members are affiliated with the family. Some of the names are well-known and mentioned extensively, such as the brother General Maher Assad, who is in charge of a military battalion, the uncle Mohammed Makhlouf, the cousin businessman Rami Makhlouf, and the other son Hafez, who is a security officer with Ali Mamluk, head of the General Intelligence. In addition, there are the brother-in-law Asif Shawkat, Deputy Chief of Staff, and Rustom Ghazali, chief of military security. I heard many other names, but I chose to overlook what I could not confirm from impartial sources. There is agreement among my sources that the President had backtracked from his approval of the mediators' proposals, after close advisers convinced him that the mediators gave the dissidents too much, too quickly, too easily, which would have encouraged them to ask for more, and that the security-based approach would hence be the best way to end the crisis. The security-based approach failed month after month, until we entered a second year of the daily killings. Parliamentary elections are scheduled for May 7, but they do not seem to solve anything. To be sure, the regime has postponed the regional conference of the Baath party from March 18 to March 28, then again indefinitely and instructed the party members to focus on the legislative elections where a presidential candidate would need 35 votes to endorse his nomination. This guarantees that the regime will choose the competitors of President Bashar al-Assad for the post of president, according to the opposition. The new constitution, which was ratified on 26/2/2012, practically eliminated competition for the presidency, as it stipulates that a candidate may not hold another nationality beside Syrian citizenship. This means the exclusion of three quarters of the National Council, including Burghan Ghalioun and Basma Kodmani. The constitution also requires the candidate to have been a resident of Syria for at least ten years prior to running in the elections. Article II of the old constitution is an infamous one. It stipulated that the Baath Arab Socialist Party is the leader of the state and society. This Article has now been repealed, and was replaced by what dissidents are calling ‘a booby-trap'. Indeed, the new Article says: Power is exercised democratically through the ballot box, but the opposition says that the Article should have mentioned the rotation of, and not the exercise of, power, i.e. maintaining permanent control of said power. Perhaps this grievance is well founded. To be sure, Article 88 of the new constitution says that the term of the President is seven years, which can be renewed for one time only. However, the constitution states that the implementation of Article 88 begins after the term of the current President ends in 2014. The opposition has insisted that this clause means that the new constitution ensures that Dr. Bashar al-Assad will stay in office until 2028. The dissidents also reject any claim of the new constitution being democratic, as it provides for the President's right to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and ministers, which would invalidate the results of any elections through denying the Parliament elected by the people the right to choose the Prime Minister and Ministers. Have I then, with the above, closed the door to democratic transformation in Syria? I do not have an answer. The opposition is calling for foreign military intervention that I do not see coming. The Arab countries that want to see change in Syria, led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, do not have the means for a military intervention. This is while Turkey has a rhetoric that is unmatched by action on the ground. In truth, its discourse grew more belligerent during the Turkish elections, only to take on a softer tone afterwards. In addition, the Friends of Syria conference scheduled to take place on the first of April lacks the ability to undertake military intervention. On the other hand, sanctions have a limited impact on the Syrian economy, which is outside of the global order to begin with. Moreover, Syria is a rich agricultural nation, and for this reason, the people are unlikely to starve. This is not to mention the military capabilities of the regime and sustained Iranian support extended to it through the Iraqi channel. I am supposed to conclude with some combination of thought and logic, and perhaps even philosophy. But all I can say instead is: May God help the Syrian people. [email protected]
