Since the beginning of the revolution in Syria, it was clear that there was a huge disconnect between the opposition and the revolution. As the protests grew, Syrians felt empowered as they were drawn together to overthrow the regime.
But official opposition forces were weak and fragile. Instead of joining the people’s revolution they became dependent on foreign powers and saw the moment as an opportunity to take revenge for the oppressive rule they had experienced.
They focused on the imperialists’ mission to replace the regime, while some opposition figures drowned in financial support – turning them into beneficiaries and profiteers from the death and destruction around them. Their “policy” – metaphorically speaking, of course, these people have never had a policy idea in their lives – was based on a strategy of encouraging imperialist intervention and resulted in the group moving from one capital to another.
As I pointed out several times, their discourse comprised of three main elements. First, insulting the regime and repeating a worn-out discourse about oppressive rule. Second, lamenting the martyrs and turning the revolution into a spectacle of mourning. Third, many opposition figures begged for imperialist intervention.
By doing this, the opposition powers harmed the revolution, scared away prospective participants, and confused activists. They have had their conflicts and disputes, but they have never disagreed on this.
Therefore, leading Syrian opposition figures became dependent on the policies of regional and international powers, and inevitably the regime as well. The founders of the Syrian National Council depended on the intervention of Turkey, Qatar and France before the US and Saudi Arabia joined them.
Meanwhile, it appeared that the Muslim Brotherhood sought dominance of the opposition and that they were supported by Turkey who had found no other substitute for Assad’s rule than the Islamist party. The dictator had often served the interests of Turkey in the past.
The US tried to prevent the Brotherhood from achieving the dominance it sought. This led to the formation of the opposition coalition once it became clear that the US wanted to facilitate the “Russian solution”.
When Ankara believed that the US had backed its demands to bring down Assad’s government and implement a buffer zone, Turkish officials began to push for Brotherhood control over the coalition and interim “government” once again.
Turkey’s influence has harmed the revolution ever since the formation of the Syrian National Council – although Turkey is a secular state, the Brotherhood is working towards establishing an Islamic state.
But unfortunately, they never introduced any actual, real education in the classrooms. In politics they resorted to outdated Islamic law; it could only bring back the past, not the first four eras of Islam, but only the era following the collapse of the empire and its civilisation.
Their policies might not be as revolting as al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State group, or the Islamic Army, but they are all working on establishing the same kind of “state”.
Meanwhile, we are left to retrace the path of the revolution and reunite the people instead of dividing them by religion and sect. The sabotage of the revolution has brought the Islamisation of the revolution and sectarian discourse. Syria’s revolution is about freedom and a dignified life.