It is true that Egyptians and Tunisians have paid a heavy price for their freedom and for their leadership the Middle East. Syria is next in line, given its massive corruption, dictatorship, and lack of free speech.

I was astonished to learn through social media about the February 5 demonstrations, as there were no signs of defiance or any preparations in the main squares of Damascus.

It is not that Syrians are timid, but the reality is worse here than in Tunisia and Egypt. One reason is our military. In both the Al-Maghreb nations, the military has acted in a more or less neutral manner. However, the Syrian military command is a corrupt family affair.

As my friends worldwide swarmed me with emails and messages I found out the intelligence service prevented the first attempted demonstrations in Damascus on January 29 in front of the Egyptian embassy and arrested some journalists and activists. One plain-clothes officer even slapped a female protester.

The venue for the second demonstration on February 2 was the office of Syriatel, a monopoly own by the Assad family. The protestors were swept away in official vans. Newspapers and social media bloggers had little to report.

Syria ranks third worst country in the world for bloggers, according to an analysis by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Tal Al-Mulohi was jailed for no offence other than blogging.

Let’s set the record straight: Syrians are fed up with the ruling family. The world sees Syria through the faces of the Syrian Baath party and the Assad family, who have held power since 1970.

The current president, Hafiz Al-Assad’s son and successor Bashar, is a disappointing continuation of the past oppression. His decade-long rule has two changes to its credit: higher rates of corruption and increased poverty.

According to a UNDP survey in 2006, over 5 million Syrians live below the poverty line with unemployment recorded at 30 percent. Half of all employed Syrians earn barely $200 each month while alleged corruption schemes enable them to pay for bills and utilities.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on January 31, Assad said his country needs time to build institutions and improve education before decisively opening its political system. The polite interviewer did not ask what had stopped him from making these changes over the last 10 years.

Unlike his father, Assad opened the Syrian economy for private companies and universities. His lip service on political reform, however, served none but his own family. We are still waiting for municipal elections, increased freedoms for nongovernmental organizations, and media reform.

Debate on political reform continues amid the ongoing state of emergency that authorizes intelligence officers to arrest anyone, including journalists. Human rights or civil society organizations do exist, but they keep a low profile on the ground and in cyberspace, and there is no movement to demonstrate their solidarity.

In Assad's opinion, Syria is stable because the government is “very closely linked to the beliefs of the people.” Belonging to a very small minority and ruling for 40 years without any semblance of public mandate, he had the gall to tell the WSJ, “When there is divergence . . . you will have this vacuum that creates disturbances."

People are tired of the repression and poverty. Revolutions usually occur for bread more than for foreign policy issues.

I see three scenarios to wriggle Syria out of this imbroglio.

The first would be foreign intervention to impose democracy. Many in the Arab world may not object to it, but Syrians would consider this an insult.

The second possibility is a likely split within the ruling political and military elite. This homegrown insurrection would cause bloodshed, but win over predominant public support for a quick transition to real democracy.

The third and the most difficult option is to force the autocratic family out of power through mass demonstrations, in the footsteps of Tunis and Egypt. Syria being a police state with unparalleled authority granted to the intelligence agencies, this is easier said than done.

Once the psychological barrier of fear is broken, the third scenario seems the most popular and long lasting.

If Tunisian and Egyptian upheavals are any indication, Assad should immediately lift the state of emergency and allow people the right to association on political and social lines, followed by free and fair elections of the parliament and prime minister.

Mubarak’s cruel policies have inspired oppressed people across the entire region. It is just a matter of time until Syrians defeat fear to win back their lives.

The Syrians have not forgotten the massacre of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in 1982 when the Assad family butchered over 30,000 in Hama city alone. The Muslim Brotherhood’s crime was to speak for rights of the people. Assad used the Hama uprising to set an example for other dissenting political voices as well as generations to come.

Besides a purely internal perspective on Syria’s tyrannical regime, we should also take into account the reality that the Western-backed state system is eroding like we saw in the Balkans and Central Asia in 1989. The two models are not identical, but they are similar. Time is up for the post-colonial Western-style state structure in North Africa and the Middle East. With the Western economy struggling for stability, the political nightmares are only starting to unfold for the US super power and its parasitic allies.

Washington, Brussels, and London should wake up to the reality of a crumbling world order. Tel Aviv will have to revisit its survival doctrine based on illegitimate nuclear weapons and human rights abuses. It has been proven beyond doubt today in the multi-religious, multi-ethnic unity in Egypt that the younger Arabs believe in equality, human rights, and alliance of civilizations.

Tweet

About the Author:
Aloosh Devrim is a young social media activist whose family struggled against Hafiz Al-Assad's rule and policies. She has traveled to the Americas, Europe, and the Middle East for her work.