Reports | 25 05 2020
By: Ali Dayyoub
Many Syrian activists—all across Facebook—seem to operate in the realm of surprises. Every day, they discover that the Syrian regime is corrupt. “Corrupt” has become, as such, one of the philosophical synonyms in their definitions of the regime. I will pause at this particular synonym merely because it relates to my essay, no more.
I will steer clear from attempting to swim in their ocean of knowledge in the conceptual field; rather contenting myself to a fraction of the evidence they put forth to prove that corruption forms one of the regime’s characteristics. It is the most commonly used side, given its inextricable connection to the dualism of justification and indictment. This is a dualism that descends from yet another, far more time-honored dualism of the sacred and the profane. It forms the very doctrinal backbone of the tolerant Abrahamic faiths—with their even more tolerant sects!—Islam in particular. This namely is the dualism of Baraa’ [disowning] and Walaa’ [loyalty]; it denotes disowning the devil, and loyalty to absolute justice.
This dualism does not allow for any reversibility in the eyes of the “geniuses” of the Revolution. The reasons, as has become usual, are readily at hand. The Revolution’s errors are not only individual; they also are immediately justifiable. Let us not forget that it was "popular" and “spontaneous;" neither the passage of time nor the repeated errors can change a single iota in this proclaimed “innocence” of the Revolution.
I do not believe there still exists anyone who is unaware of the opposition’s accusation of the regime as having released out of its prisons categories [of activists] that share in its own hostility to freedom; whilst holding firmly [in its prisons] peaceful activists, thereby rendering this criminal behavior a firm approach to eliminate both society and the state. Fine. I shall desist from attempting to argue how the opposition has emulated the regime, in this most formidably brutal field. This will call upon collective, multi-disciplinary efforts endowed with proper tools and authorities; that would also need to receive consent to conduct its research in an environment amenable to free, unobstructed research. That in itself alone, would require a revolution.
This essay will, rather, attempt to focus on the question of support given to the ambassadors of art from the opposition; in an attempt to give the Revolution a liberal face—let alone to thrust it forward.
Shall one make a mountain out of a molehill? Or shall one grant art—and artists—a role deserving of the title of “ambassador?”
I will not await any evidence-laden answer… For who, in our Arab World knows not that the public status of an artist alone can equal that of a man of religion? Notwithstanding the fact that they do not seem to know that a respected thinker like Al-Tayyeb Tizini discovered—during the era of the Revolution—that he was obligated to pose as a man of religion, so that he possessed the necessary aura of reverence, thus enabling him to mediate a marital disagreement of a couple! And that in his own native city of Homs! He also had made the discovery, several decades ago, that the reverence and respect he received in one Arab country was not by virtue of his stature as an intellectual; rather simply due to the fact that he stems from the same country as singer so-and-so!
I will not be encumbered by any doubts, that all and sundry are well aware that an artist is an honest ambassador of humanitarian issues—much more so than diplomats or political ambassadors. Neither am I that much of a nihilist to reject any form of diplomatic or general political representation of the Revolution or, for that matter, any change that helps it achieve recognition in the international system. I do, however, firmly believe that to receive the recognition of the peoples of the world—particularly the free peoples of the world—is no less valuable or salient.
The pressing question—in the form of a damning indictment—asks itself to the opposition: What have you done, that entitles you to condemn the regime? Is it acceptable for you to snide and deride its foolish acts—such as prohibiting the dubbing [into Arabic, by Syrian actors] of Turkish soap operas? That, at the same time when you yourselves made no efforts—either prior to or during the Revolution—to invest in the wealth of youthful energies and talents; that have accompanied the Revolution and even arguably been one of its progenitors, or help showcase them as its [the Revolution's] beautiful face?
I will merely give two examples: The first is represented by artists such as opera singer Lubana Quntar; artist Samih Choucair; singer Khater Dawa; actor Fares al-Helou; film director Osama Mohammed; dozens of examples of female activists in the Revolution—in vain—as well as innumerable creative energies in the seven arts; all of whom the people know, and of which people—activists in particular—talk.
The second is that of a young expressive dance artist named Yara Hasbani—Martyr Marwan Hasbani’s daughter. Rather than promoting her art and pushing it forward to stardom and limelight; she was accused by one opposition leader and prisoner of conscience—and whose freedom Syrian liberals championed!—as having disrespected “our values and the morals of our society;” simply for performing a dance in which parts of her body—the apparent property of the opposition!—were displayed!
If the outbreak of the Syrian Revolution can be deemed a quasi-miraculous event; its transformation—at the hands of the opposition—into no more than a slave to the regime, represents the zenith of callousness and incapacity!
Opinion articles published do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Rozana.