The system before the person

The Syrian opposition’s fixation on the person of Syrian President Bashar Assad in its ongoing peace talks with Damascus, held under the auspices of the UN envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, its putting him at the forefront of the talks could be counterproductive.

Whatever was wrong with Syrian policies and practices that led to the civil war in the country in March 2011, a war that took hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and destroyed the infrastructure of the entire country, was not necessarily the making of Assad himself, but rather of the power brokers in his regime who were, and still are, the reason for the conflict in the county.

The Syrian regime is refusing to even discuss Assad’s fate at this early stage in the negotiations. Russia is backing this posturing for fear that such a stance can ruin the chances of peace talks.

Those who know Assad personally say he is not only civil but also Western oriented having lived in England for a number of years while studying to become an ophthalmologist.

In his first years in office, he promised big changes in his country, including introducing liberal policies and international human rights standards.

Assad showed sensitivity to the calls for reform and to open up his country to modern ways of governance, at least during his early years as head of state.

Something must have gone wrong in the process that led him to make wrong moves and adopt wrong policies and practices.

During the initial stage of the Syrian revolution, Assad confessed to have made mistakes in dealing with the peaceful demonstrations in the southern city Daraa, the birthplace of the Syrian revolution.

It has also been claimed that he once complained to some of his critics that he was not the only one in the Syrian hierarchy who makes decisions and that “they”, meaning the powerful kingmakers in his regime, often call most of the shots and reject his reforms.

Whatever the truth is about Assad’s personal attributes, the needed political reforms in Syria need not hinge first and foremost on his fate alone, but rather on the fate of the one-party system in the country, which is an important factor to salvaging Syria from its bloody and destructive civil war and ushering in a new era of genuine reforms, democracy and the rule of law, with or without Assad.

Removing Assad from power must not, therefore, be the ultimate or the only aim of the opposition; it should strive to overhaul the entire regime on contemporary basis.

Assad’s fate must, therefore, be discussed at the end of the reformation period in the country, rather than at its beginning, especially that he now accepts to hold early presidential elections under UN auspices.