Syria’s future will be decided by a correct reading of developments

Regardless of what one says, words remain inadequate for doing justice to the major shift that Syria has seen over the past week.

The end of the Assad dynasty after more than half a century is a significant development, very significant indeed. It will be even more significant and will endure longer in our collective memory and conscience if the alternative succeeds in overcoming the challenges and repudiates the pessimists, who nonchalantly and confidently claim that our people do not deserve democracy, leaving us with only two options: tyranny through raw violence or the tyranny of religious extremism.

Personally, given my desire to be optimistic about this country, which I adore, and my knowledge that many of its citizens are prudent … I want to be optimistic this time.

The tragic ordeal that the people’s “uprising” faced in late 2011 and 2012 left us with harsh lessons that I doubt anyone active in Syria will forget, no matter how much time passes.

Let us present a recap of what happened:

In March 2011, the Syrian people rose up in the most beautiful and courageous uprising of the so-called Arab Spring. Its first spark was in Houran, in the far south of the country.

It was a spontaneous mass uprising, in which Syrians of all ages, religions, sects and ethnicities took part, demanding freedom and dignity, before the regime’s brutal repression pushed them to use violence.

Later, the defection of military officers and soldiers, as well as the regime’s savage response to the peaceful demonstrations, contributed to the militarization of the uprising, which ordinary citizens never chose — citizens who had never considered themselves to be in the trench opposite that of Bashar Assad’s army.

The Syrian people did choose to taint their uprising with sectarianism, revenge, division or separation.

Despite the escalating repression, the Syrians still did not lose their moral compass or their hope for change

Eyad Abu Shakra

They absolutely did not seek this in the slightest. Here, I recall anecdotes that push back against the regime’s propaganda about a “sectarian uprising,” which was founded on the fact that many protests were launched from mosques after Friday prayers.

A dear friend once explained to me that many Christians would gather outside these mosques, waiting for their Muslim brothers to walk out so they could join them, hoping that the security forces and the regime’s gangs would hesitate to shoot at worshippers coming out of a mosque.

The vast majority of the demonstrations in the first months and years included all segments of Syrian society. That was before local, regional and international interests infiltrated the country, sowing mistrust and instilling fear as they sought to seize the moment by encouraging and aggravating extremism.

Despite all of this, however, most Syrians did not lose their moral compass.

Despite attempts by several parties to ride the bandwagon of the movement, marginalize competition and seize the spoils before they had been acquired, along with the emergence of suspicious groups that usurped slogans and committed human rights violations, the uprising persisted.

And despite the escalating repression — parallel to or in anticipation of growing mass rage — the Syrians still did not lose their moral compass or their hope for change.

Neither the world’s abandonment — including Barack Obama’s “red lines” that neither the toxic gas nor the barrel bombs crossed — nor the Russian airstrikes, nor the misleading conferences, managed to weaken the resilience and belief of the Syrian people, who remained convinced that dignity, freedom and rights are indivisible.

The Syrians bet on the passage of time. They won their bet against a regime that lived in a realm without time. It had benefited, for decades, from its rivals and neighbors’ intersection of interests around it. Indeed, as it vied for survival at any cost, the regime made generous concessions to all foreign actors, while depriving its people of minimal freedom and rights.

Then, as global priorities shifted, many of these points of intersection collapsed. The frail authorities, which were not trusted or supported by the people, began to wobble. Members of the military were not willing to fight and defend a regime that no longer meant anything to them.

Moreover, the conditions of the fighters who had been sent to the country from other countries, especially Lebanon, changed drastically in the past few months. Israel escalated its war and sought to make as many gains as possible before the new US administration takes office on Jan. 20.

Thus, to the astonishment of the world, Syria’s cities fell, one after the other, within a few days. One or two sides of the regional triangle were left to dominate at the expense of the third side.

Nonetheless, fundamental facts must be recognized, the most prominent of which are:

First, overthrowing a regime does not necessarily guarantee the success of the alternative. Indeed, many actors had been unwilling to recognize the party that toppled the regime until recently.

Second, Syria remains coveted by several regional powers. It remains an important chess piece on the board of international competition in the region.

Third, in an era in which identities and borders have fallen and nations are caught in the labyrinth of racism, miscalculations based on misguided judgments should be avoided.

Fourth, the imbalance in international relations between the major powers will have repercussions in the Middle East. Syria is now undergoing a fragile and critical path that will inevitably be affected by this imbalance. It will also certainly have implications for neighboring entities, unless the latter take the initiative and recognize the risks, protect Syria as a political entity and agree on a strategy that ensures its survival through frameworks suitable for enhancing the state.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. X: @eyad1949

This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.