Redefining "Resistance"

When Arabs talk of about Al-mukawamah (resistance), they refer to a just struggle against anyone who breaches the sanctity of Arab land. It is a logical, justifiable and understandable nationalistic response to free occupied land. It is an idea that has instant mass appeal. Resistance, however, was always too narrowly -and negatively- defined as armed struggle, which often became an end in itself. Some leaders of resistance movements exploited the mass appeal of resistance to justify all of their actions and silence critics. Moreover, the idea of resistance was often commandeered by entrenched regimes to deflect attention from their own shortcomings; that explains the sudden fervor of the Syrian government for creating a "resistance" movement akin the Hizbullah in the Golan heights shortly after the July war in Lebanon.

It is time for us to redefine the idea of resistance both in relation to the methods and the targets of such resistance. First, we need to ditch the idea that resistance=armed struggle. My own experiences have taught me to abhor violence both on moral but also on pragmatic grounds. Armed resistance has a role when there are well-defined and achievable goals. Otherwise, it becomes self-destructive for the resistance movement itself and the people it claims to be working for. Second, we need to broaden the targets of resistance to include our own, corrupt and autocratic governments.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not advocating the creation of dissident guerilla movements. The last thing I, or most Syrians for that matter, want to see is Syria turned into another Iraq.
What I am advocating for is a form of civil resistance. A skeptic would say that its precisely what the leaders of the Damascus Spring and other dissidents have done and that has gotten them nowhere. The problem is that these leaders lack the visible support of the common citizen; even autocratic regimes are mindful of the will of the people -provided that will is expressed. The reason as we all know is that most Syrian citizens are politically disenfranchised and fearful of airing their political views. Yet, despite the tight government control on the media, Syria is not as closed a society as it was in the 70s and 80s. Many Syrians have traveled abroad and have access to information that the government does not control. They know and have seen alternatives to the autocratic system that they have to endure. Moreover, Syrian civil society has shown that it is capable of acting independently of the government. Witness the admirable Syrian civil society response to help displaced Lebanese. Some of it, to be sure, was government propaganda. Most, however, was the coordinated effort of common citizens, unions, professional groups and private businesses.

I am not expecting or imagining mass anti-government demonstrations to suddenly materialize in Syria. Yet, the Syrian people can no longer afford to wait for the halting pace of "reform" that the regime espouses. What is needed is coordinated civil action for change. It should start far from hot-button political issues but with issues that the government itself claims it is working to change such as corruption, economic reform and issues of social justice.

Is this all wishful thinking? Perhaps. An organized, activist civil society on its own may not be capable of affecting the type of change that is needed. Nevertheless, civil society groups working independently of the government are still critical for the long term health of Syria and are essential to mitigate the effects of a sudden (regime) change that would cause the instant disintegration of the centralized government.

(Illustration: Picasso's dove of peace)