In the corridors of Syrian politics and in the salons of the elite concerned with public affairs, the name of former Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi has resurfaced, raising thorny questions about "the standards of patriotism" and "the jurisprudence of interests."
The man who defected (at the end of 2012) and left Damascus in protest against the military option finds himself today caught in a double crossfire: from remnants of the old regime who consider him a traitor, and from a segment of "New Syria" that cannot forgive his past official duties.
There is no doubt that Makdissi, 51, possesses the tools of a "modern diplomat": fluent English, a deep understanding of the intricacies of international politics, and a charisma that many figures of the former traditional opposition lacked. These are precisely the qualities Syria needs in Washington—the center of global decision-making—to persuade the American administration on complex and sensitive issues.
However, this approach runs up against a psychological and political obstacle: the "system complex." The question on everyone's mind is: How can we entrust someone who was once a voice for the regime with representing a revolution that rose up against it?
The great paradox in the current Syrian scene lies in a kind of "double standard." While we are witnessing "reconciliation" processes with figures who continued to defend the regime until its collapse or decline, Maqdisi, who took a moral and political stance by defecting early in late 2012, is being persecuted.
This contradiction leads us to a fundamental question:
- If we were all, as a social and institutional structure, part of the "Assad state" before we revolted against it, why are technocrats and experts denied the right to "political dissent" and to work for the benefit of a new Syria?
- Can Syria afford to exclude highly qualified experts at a time when the country needs every diplomatic mind capable of deciphering the codes of the international community?
In American political circles, success is not measured by the "purity" of a revolutionary record as much as it is by the ability to persuade and achieve common interests.
Jihad Makdissi, with his diplomatic background, represents a "common language" understood by the White House and the US State Department. Excluding him based on emotional stances could mean losing a significant Syrian voice in the capital of decision-making.
In short, the debate surrounding Makdissi is not so much about him personally as it is about the identity of Syria's future: Will it be a state based on "revolutionary power-sharing" and exclusion, or a state of "institutions and competence" that embraces its citizens who have sided with the people, regardless of their professional history?
Zaman al-Wasl
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.