The problem with the Syrian regime is that it is still using archaic language while the whole region is calling for modern rhetoric and a modern approach to politics. The relatively young president, Bashar al-Assad, has not understood that the uprising calling for greater freedoms in his country cannot be isolated from similar desires sweeping across the Middle East. Calling it a conspiracy shows that Assad is not willing to open his eyes to the reality of the future of the region.

The new Middle East has nothing to do with the usual divisions between pro-Western and anti-Western countries. The West seems to be a side issue. The demands of Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Yemenis, Bahrainis and Syrians are focused on freedom and internal reforms. Their problem is their leaders, not anyone else’s.

Assad knows this, but the main reason he cannot, and will not, come through on any of his promises is that if he did, it would be the end of the regime. This emergency law is not a text that can be erased with a decision or a committee; it has become a fundamental component of the regime, one that was created to protect it from the democratic impulses of the people.

Such a course of action doesn’t bear thinking about. His regime cannot and will not survive in a society that allows freedom of speech and holds free and fair elections. His regime is sectarian, one made up of Alawis, a minority in Syria. It has survived for almost 50 years because of the emergency law and a draconian security system, one that has allowed Assad and his close family members to control the intelligence and security services as well as the army. 

Assad could have been more subtle and dealt with the situation smoothly instead of totally discarding his people’s aspirations. He could have made major structural and legal reforms that could have eased the rage of the demonstrators.

Everybody believed Assad when he said that Syria is immune because it backs resistance forces, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which enjoy popular support among the Syrian people. That was the first mistake. He tried to convince us that the uprisings in other countries were about the Arab-Israeli conflict. They weren’t.

His second mistake was made after the uprising started, when Assad’s spokeswoman, Buthaina Shaaban, promised that the emergency law would be lifted and other significant reforms would be announced during the speech. However, the president uttered nothing but platitudes and invalid explanations of why the reforms were over ten years late. 

Instead of announcing reforms, Assad decided to face internal opposition with aggressive security measures. Instead of releasing all political prisoners, the security apparatus made more arrests. Instead of listening to the protestors, security officers killed them. Instead of opening proper dialogue channels with the people, the regime widened the gap between itself and them. Assad left the protestors no choice but to go all the way to achieve their demands.

Assad, like his father before him, has walked a thin line between war and peace for decades. The Golan Heights have been occupied for over 30 years without a shot being fired to retake them, but at the same time, Syria has sponsored resistance forces outside Syria, creating fragile friendships and kind enemies. Israel, for example, still prefers Assad to a radical Islamist alternative, but his support for Hezbollah and Hamas has hampered this relationship. At the same time, and under the illusion that Assad might distance himself from Iran, the West and some Arab countries have courted his regime as a potential ally.

But today, these fragile relations, potential or otherwise, might not last if Assad keeps on turning a blind eye to the demands of his people. At some point, all those who have reassured Assad recently with letters and statements of support, such as the Saudi king and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who called him a reformist just before his infamous speech), will eventually turn against him when he also leaves them no choice.
They turned against their ally, Hosni Mubarak, just a month ago; Assad is certainly not immune.

Everybody in Syria knows that when a committee is formed to revise a law, it means that it will go into a black hole. So when the Syrian news agency SANA announced on Thursday that Assad had ordered the formation of a committee to examine the emergency law, the response was that people on Friday hit the streets across the country. 

This committee was created by the regime. It is not an independent or joint committee between the authorities and the people. Therefore, it will never come up with a decision that will harm the regime, such as lifting the state of emergency.

Unfortunately, Assad still treats his people as stupid followers. He called their uprising a conspiracy, and at the same time made promises of reform that would probably not see the light of day. Their reaction: more anger and more demonstrations. The same happened in Tunisia and Egypt. Syria is not really that different. The people and their aspirations are the same everywhere.

Hanin Ghaddar is managing editor of NOW Lebanon