Though speculative philosophy would not normally or properly concern itself with anecdotal evidence, much less take it as a starting point, I can say this statement of a Syrian who finds himself aligned with the revolution ought to be alarming to the despot. For it strikes at the foundation of a regime based on fear.
The negative moment during which using force makes one’s opponent initially stronger is dialectically linked to the corresponding positive moment of the movement in two ways.
· The use of force is inevitably, if only in isolated instances, carried to excess, usually by people of low understanding – that is, those who are charged with carrying out the policy physically. Thus a 13-year-old boy is beaten to death and mutilated, and the revolution gains adherents through his martyrdom.
· Any form of resistance, however futile or even brutal in itself, is automatically reflected in the light of courage when it overcomes fear to rise against superior, oppressive force. As courage is admirable, it too draws adherents.
These two corollaries may be summed up by saying, a revolution gains both by its opponents’ excess, and by its adherents’ success.
Numerous other facts – that townsmen are willing to snipe with rifles at armored vehicles, that soldiers and police are in mutiny, that the only “reliable” soldiers must be Alawite and commanded by the despot’s close relations – demonstrate that the regime has wielded strength too strongly. Soon it may appear, and later may actually be, relatively weak.
It’s clear at any rate that the juvenile Bashar still figures to make the revolution suffer for whatever it gains.
No comments:
Post a Comment