Between regime change, revolutionary victory: Look at Syrian scene

Regime change, in its simplest definition, is the process of "replacing one political elite with another," similar to changing the management of a failing company while retaining the same old employees, the same mindsets, and the same falsified accounting records.

The new regime accepts political "Byzantium," meaning it maintains control over foreign and domestic policy decisions while preserving the entire state infrastructure: dilapidated institutions, a decaying security apparatus, and administrative personnel who have worked for decades to entrench corruption and engineer loyalties.

The victory of the revolution, however, is not merely the removal of a tyrant; it is a new intellectual framework for the state. It represents a moral and administrative break with everything that came before, and a redefinition of the concepts of "citizen," "justice," and "public funds."

Let's break down the real picture today, moving beyond generalities:

1. Regarding the identity of decision-makers and those in their positions: Today, if you were to ask any employee in any directorate or ministry, their answer would be shockingly realistic: "It's the same thing. The names of the directors have changed, but the decision-making power remains with those who pull the strings behind the scenes. The old regime thugs, who have been deeply involved in the bloodshed of Syrians, haven't left their offices; instead, they've found a new cover under the guise of 'administrative experience' or 'the necessity of business continuity.'"

Here, the revolution reveals its true face: The revolution does not allow those who led the machinery of oppression to sit in positions of power, and then expect citizens to trust the new state. The revolution establishes a firm principle: "There can be no partnership between the executioner and the victim in building the future."

2. Regarding the law of accountability and rehabilitation: In the system of regime change, the corruption file is closed under the pretexts of "national interest" and "preserving unity," and mere token dismissals are all that's left. A revolution, however, establishes independent investigative bodies, opens all files related to lucrative contracts, smuggling deals, and the theft of gas and oil, leaving no file unexamined.

A true revolution does not allow a director general to bring in whomever he pleases under the guise of "competence," especially when there are dozens like him in state institutions.

A revolution completely abolishes the concepts of "nepotism" and "favoritism," making integrity and competence the sole criteria for employment. It reopens the doors of work and positions to all those who have been unjustly marginalized, because the revolution owes a debt to the honorable people who have been oppressed for decades.

3. Regarding power-sharing and factionalism: Regime change often turns its back on the principle of a civil state, distributing positions based on factional or regional affiliation, as if the state were "spoils" to be divided among the victorious parties.

A revolution, however, rejects this logic entirely. A revolution does not discriminate between one Syrian and another based on their faction or region. It views the citizen as a complete entity with rights, and makes public office a responsibility, not an honor. In the revolution, there is no place for favoritism or nepotism, only for "serious work" and "clean hands."

4. Regarding workers in vital sectors (the oil and gas sector): Let's look at the current state of the oil sector. In the event of regime change, the sector will be left to the employees who managed operations for the benefit of Russian companies and local entities like "Al-Qatirji" and the "Al-Maham" company, among other corrupt contracts. Employees caught in the middle will be left like those dismissed by the revolution and marginalized, sidelined, while the sector's management remains unchanged.

However, with the victory of the revolution, the oil sector's contract files will be reopened from scratch. The revolution will sift through employees: those forced to remain due to circumstances will be retrained and their rights protected, while those who knowingly participated in plundering the nation's wealth will be held accountable. The revolution will not leave "decision-making" to the corrupt or to authoritarian managers; rather, it will establish laws that protect honest workers and criminalize those who profit from corruption.

5. Regarding the inconsistency of decision-making and the absence of justice: Regime change vacillates between policies of enticement and intimidation; one day it spares the corrupt while awaiting evidence and a trial, and the next it condemns those who speak out about corruption.

A revolution, however, does not experience such inconsistency because it possesses a clear moral compass. A revolution does not set aside justice merely to achieve "temporary stability." A revolution does not leave crucial personal decisions in the hands of a manager who acts according to his whims as if he were the law. Rather, it subjects all employees, including the manager, to laws and regulations governing powers, and makes "justice" the primary guiding principle of every policy.

6. Regarding the reconstruction and compensation file (as in the case of Qaboun and Jobar): In the policy of regime change, the reconstruction file is managed like a "bazaar" or a business deal with cronies, and the truly affected (those whose homes were destroyed in Ghouta, Jobar, and Qaboun) are marginalized and placed on waiting lists, while privileges are distributed to private companies, making the area an easy target and depriving the vulnerable of their rights.

As for the revolution, it considers compensating the victims a moral priority before it is an economic one. The revolution refuses to allow people's suffering to become a commodity in the political arena; the revolution sees in the home of every displaced person a microcosm of their homeland that must be restored before any grand strategic project.

The profound conclusion in a few words:

Changing the regime means removing the tyrant, but leaving his corruption and his cronies in the institutions. The victory of the revolution lies in revitalizing the institutions, making them servants of the people, not instruments of fear and privilege.

The revolution is not a moment of collapse, but rather an ongoing surgical operation that eradicates corruption at its roots and rebuilds the Syrian people before rebuilding the infrastructure. Unless we witness this surgical operation on the ground, we will remain trapped in a vicious cycle of disappointment.

Zaman al-Wasl