The rising intensity of the protest movement in all parts of Syria in general, and over the past few days in Damascus and Aleppo in particular, shows that the solution to the crisis that erupted roughly 15 months ago remains far out of reach, or so it seems, whether in terms of the military solution adopted by the authorities, or the UN-AL solution that is meeting with difficulties at its first clause. Indeed, the Syrian regime is using all of the power and political ability it has in order to impose its own solution, without being able to reach its goal. The domestic opposition continues to fill the streets wherever it can, its members protesting and falling victim, without being able to impose the rate of reform it demands. The Free Syrian Army (FSA), which had declared its mission to be the protection of protesters, finds itself unable to protect even its own supporters from the state killing machine. As for the political opposition abroad, especially the Syrian National Council (SNC), it is busy with its own problems, disagreements and discrepancy in assessments and tactics, much more than focused on how to emerge from the predicament represented by the absence of a solution. The international community, for its part, has gone as far as current circumstances allow, through consensus by the Security Council over Kofi Annan's plan, but remains unable to secure the implementation of its first clause in order to move on to the political solution. The fact is that the Syrian regime still has the ability to impose its own rhythm on the situation, on the basis of its view of a possible solution. Not without significance, it considers that the country is getting back in shape, that government authorities have returned to imposing their control, and that citizens are convinced with the steps of reform it has taken – to such an extent that it has invited them to vote in legislative elections tomorrow. And regardless of the surreal step of holding elections in such a climate, similar to that of a civil war, the regime is at the same time carrying out large scale military operations that focus essentially on striking against FSA stronghold, and is engaged in a broad campaign of arrests among the ranks of the elite. This means that, for the regime, bloody repression and silencing represent the other face of the reform it intends to carry out. Tomorrow's elections thereby turn into an integral part of the military solution that has been adopted since the first day of the Syrian people's uprising. This regime is thus being faithful to its view of the management of Syria's affairs ever since the “corrective movement” of November 16, 1970, when violence came to represent the instrument of rule, with the elections and the National Front being only the façade hiding this tyrannical violence. Indeed, the movement that was led by late President Hafez Al-Assad was dubbed “corrective” in reference to its mission of reform, which the comrades in power before 1970 had diverted from. The outcome of such reform was putting an end to any role played by political parties, labor unions and the opposition as a whole, throwing in jail any voice that was different, and expanding the role of the security apparatus at every level – reaching up to large scale security campaigns in “rebellious” areas, as took place in Hama and in other parts of the country. All of this was in the name of reform and of protecting the poor, the workers and the farmers, who grew increasingly poor and whose living conditions deteriorated further in favor of certain segments of society with marginal economic activity within the regime or in alliance with it, who amassed tremendous wealth. The current regime, headed by Doctor Bashar Al-Assad, remained faithful to this view of rule, and perhaps clung to it even more after the collapse of the theory of “defiance” which had for years, just like reform and correction, provided cover for the nature of the regime. Hence, the regime considers any laxity at the level of security, such as a ceasefire or refraining from pursuing opposition members (peaceful or armed) to arrest and kill them, would be equivalent in its importance to any laxity at the political level. Indeed, either of them would represent the beginning of the end for this kind of regime. The function of tomorrow's elections is therefore the same one that is being carried out by tanks and heavy artillery in confronting the protest movement.
