Foad Abdul Aziz returns to writing, and Syria returns with him. Whenever the new authorities issue a decision, a large segment of people who still carry the remnants of Assad’s regime and Baathist thinking in their minds and souls immediately rise in objection to the changes taking place in the economy, politics, administration, and society. But this raises a fundamental question: Did the Syrian people seek to remove Bashar al-Assad merely because he belonged to a certain sect, only to replace him with a president from another sect while keeping everything else intact? Or was the goal to change everything?
Opposition to the new authorities’ decisions has gone beyond routine criticism and entered a far more profound and dangerous level. Since the very first day of liberation, a significant group of Syrians has dealt with this authority with strange arrogance and condescension, as though those now governing had emerged from the jungles of the Amazon or the most remote corners of Africa. These same people constantly offer what they call “advice and guidance” on highly sensitive and complex matters such as foreign policy, economics, and political appointments. Most often, these “experts” are ordinary individuals whose only qualification is that circumstances allowed them to live in Europe and wander its streets.
The Assad Regime as a Mentality, Not Just a Ruler
Some may argue that Syrians today are simply fearful for their country after finally reclaiming it, and that they do not want Syria to return to the Assad era once again. Yet in reality, much of what they are doing amounts to opposing every meaningful change to the systems and structures that existed under both Assads.
Syria under Assad was something surreal, something resembling folklore, mythical tales, or the absurd stories our grandmothers told us about monsters and ghosts. In simple terms, we were living at the farthest edge of backwardness. If the new authorities do not change everything, from the appearance of schools to the administrative mentality and policies that once dominated every institution, then Syria will neither survive nor truly transform.
Our objection to Assad’s rule was never about wheat prices being too low or salaries being insufficient. On this point specifically, let me say that before leaving the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) in 2012, my salary was close to 600 dollars a month. In addition, I worked in the private sector and earned even more, meaning my monthly income often exceeded 1,000 dollars and sometimes reached 2,000. Many journalists earned similar amounts, or significantly more. Yet when we rose up against Assad, we were not searching for better salaries or employment opportunities. This was reflected in the chants heard after Bashar al-Assad announced salary increases during the early days of the Syrian revolution, when demonstrators responded:
“HEY Buthaina Shaaban! The Syrian people are not hungry.”
“The Syrian revolution was never a protest over salaries or bread, it was a revolt against a system of humiliation, corruption, and national destruction.”
Foad Abdul Aziz
The Syrian Revolution was never about higher wages or better jobs. It was a rebellion against an entire system of corruption and looting that was driving the country toward destruction.
Personally, I did not revolt so that I would one day stand in a public square holding a cardboard sign demanding lower electricity prices or writing articles about increasing wheat subsidies. I revolted against a complete machinery of plunder that I believed was leading Syria to ruin.
Today, more than a year and a half after liberation, I am deeply saddened by the state of journalism and journalists who remain trapped in the mentality and intellectual framework of the Assad era. After the dismissal of the former Minister of Information, for example, some defended him in exactly the same style once used by the old Baath Party newspaper, arguing that the man had been “successful” because under his leadership Syria’s satellite channels, news networks, Al-Thawra newspaper, and SANA had all been relaunched with a modern appearance. But does this really mean that if someone else had occupied the same position, these media outlets would never have been modernized?
“Syria does not need media with a new appearance carrying the same Assad-era mentality in its language, culture, and thinking.”
Foad Abdul Aziz
A final word
When I was arrested in mid-2011, the criminal General Jamil Hassan took my mobile phone and began scrolling through the names in my contacts, reading them aloud. Literally, my phone was filled with the names of senior officials, businessmen, and influential economists in the country, so much so that I could not even add many of my own friends, because SIM cards back then could only store around 200 contacts.
He looked at me in astonishment and asked with a voice dripping with sarcasm,
“Why would someone like you need a revolution?”
And I said to myself: How could you ever explain to such an ignorant man that I did not rise up for my own sake, but because I wanted a better future for my country, for my children, and for the generations yet to come?
