Syria’s Manna: On Ghalioun and the Trinity of a Successful Revolt
By: Othman Tazghart [1]
Published Saturday, October 8, 2011
Syrian opposition activist Haytham Manna speaks about the “trinity” of a successful revolution in Syria, his take on the newly formed Syrian National Council and his recent fallout with prominent dissident Burhan Ghalioun.
Othman Tazghart (OT): What are your reservations about the recent Istanbul conference? Why have you refused to join the Syrian National Council formed as a result?
Haytham Manna (HM): This Council is the result of an initiative by a group whose identity is connected to one ideology. It was not authorized by the political opposition or the youth movement inside the country. This group spent 55 days promoting the need for such a council on the basis that it will bring the revolutionary youth out of this crisis, solve all their problems, and facilitate material help, international recognition, a no-fly zone, and so on. Over the last month and a half, there have been repeated attempts to introduce Libyan vocabulary into the Syrian revolution. The people who have done this are professionals, they do not belong to any known political group. They call themselves ‘independents’ or the ‘Independent Islamic Movement.’ This group has sought to impose their plan on everyone else from the beginning and they failed in their first two attempts in Istanbul.
There was a joint attempt by all the major political groups to form a ‘National Syrian Alliance’ that would include the real political forces within the country. But the Istanbul group tried to weaken this alliance by appealing to some of its members to join the National Council instead. They claim that the difficult part is forming the council, after which the world would recognize them and facilitate miracles, allowing the revolution to carry on and succeed, while reinforcing the role of the youth in it. Sale of this illusion went hand in hand with attempts to takeover the unified consensus work being carried out between various political movements. It gave the National Council a specific ideological coloring, where the Islamists were granted 60 percent of council membership, when their real weight within the opposition is a fraction of that.
Moreover, this council lacks modesty, because those who formed it assert that they represent the majority in the revolution, including the coordinating committees. They claim that they will save the revolution and change the course of history. This will certainly reflect negatively on them when people discover their real size, the limits of their representation, and their modest means; with all due respect to some who have supported them.
OT: Do you think that making Dr. Burhan Ghalioun, a man with genuine credibility, the president of the council will help guarantee against such pitfalls as militarization of the uprising or foreign intervention?
HM: I have said several times, particularly during my last visit to Tunisia, that the Tunisian revolution gave us three basic principles. The first is the peaceful nature of the revolution. The second is the absence of the idol. There are no idols or individual leaders, only working groups who offer democratic solutions and think in a collective manner and seek consensus and pluralistic mechanisms that respect the efforts of these people while limiting their power. The third principle is the secular nature of the collective movement. This trinity for me is pertinent when it comes to Syria. I do not believe that any one person, whoever they are, can prevent all mistakes, especially when his position changs several times in the last few days. We want to escape the individual dictatorship of Arab rulers, so it does not make sense to devote our work to dictatorship and individualism.
OT: You have close ties with Dr. Burhan Ghalioun. From the beginning of the protests in Syria you have agreed on the peaceful and secular nature of the revolution. What are the reasons behind the differences that have arisen between you lately?
HM: There were no differences until the last meeting in Berlin. Dr. Ghalioun had promised to attend the meeting of the National Coordination Committee in Berlin and we were waiting for him to arrive. We were surprised to find that he had changed course to Istanbul, with no apology, explanation, or even prior notice. We have not spoken since that day. I think that Dr. Ghalioun owes us an explanation. We need to understand why we should offer all these concessions to the Islamists in Istanbul when we are a country with 26 sects, creeds, and ethnic groups.
This means that this is a country where the relationship between religion and the state cannot be dealt with lightly. The Syrian Revolution of 1925 held that “religion is for God and the homeland is for all.” Today, minorities do not play an effective role, so we need a secular discourse to gain their confidence. The Syrian people are believers, but they don’t want any religious ideology to influence their constitution or their future. I wish that Dr. Ghalioun would not take that line. After the Hama massacre in the 1980s, Said Hawa, a major thinker in the Muslim Brotherhood, tried to explain the failures of The Fighting Vanguard, their military wing. He concluded that “the Syrian people love freedom, the republic, and democracy.” I hope that some people do not forget this lesson.
OT: Some are asking, is your opposition to the National Council because of the Muslim Brotherhood’s presence in it or because of the size of the representation they were given?
HM: It is well known that I worked hard to rehabilitate the Muslim Brotherhood with the other political parties in Syria. I facilitated their reconciliation with several political groups. I was one of the most prominent defenders of Islamist prisoners. Therefore, I have no problem with them. I see the Islamists as part of the political geography of all Islamic countries, not just Syria. But I believe that at most, 10 percent of Syrian society supports the Muslim Brotherhood. I do not understand why they are clambering for more representation.
I hope that they will be wise and rational enough to see that it is not in their interest or the interest of the revolution for them to exaggerate their role in the Syrian uprising. It is the dictatorship that is inflating their role to scare off international support. They’re serving this purpose by exaggerating their role at conferences and in the media.
OT: In one of your statements, you described the group who prepared for the Istanbul conference as the “Syrian Washington Club.” There is also talk of American funding of this meeting. What are the motives for this? Is it related to a specific political agenda?
HM: The American administration lost its battle with Hezbollah in Lebanon and with Iran over nuclear power. It is now seeking to turn the Syrian revolution into a sort of proxy war against Iranian influence in the region. It is no secret to anyone that America absolutely does not want to support a revolution which seeks secular democratic change in the Arab world. The democratic Syrian revolution is a true revolution, not a proxy war. There was definitely American funding behind the Istanbul group, official and unofficial. There was also funding from the Arab Gulf states. But I believe that money does not make or break a revolution. It affects revolutions negatively by reinforcing opportunism and conspiracy and weakening the role of the genuine fighters in certain phases. Money cannot change the course of history.
OT: Do you think that the Istanbul meeting and the National Council are in breach of the consensus document signed in Doha?
HM: Istanbul was a complete cancellation of what was agreed upon in Doha. In Doha, it was agreed that the Syrian National Alliance was the prime organizer of all efforts to later set up a Syrian political council. The agreement dictated that leadership for the national alliance should include the most significant political forces, on condition that greater weight be given to the opposition inside the country.
But this was circumvented when the Istanbul meetings were revived, after two failed attempts, by attracting some groups who are poorly represented at home, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Damascus Declaration signatories. The Brotherhood’s role in the revolution has been restricted to media work and sending aid, and the Damascus Declaration is no longer the force it once was. Moreover, the most prominent intellectuals behind the Damascus Declaration are now part of the National Coordination Committee and have not joined the Istanbul group.
OT: Are there differences between the Doha agreement and the Istanbul meeting on the issues of arming the revolution and foreign intervention?
HM: I have always sought to develop basic principles on which all the opposition agrees. We began by announcing the Oath of Dignity and Rights on June 17 as a supra-constitutional text that includes the basic principles of the Second Syrian Republic. This is definitely rejected by a large proportion of the Islamists, which is why this essential text was replaced in the National Council by a loose declaration. The National Council’s declaration is not based on a clear political program. All matters were left ambiguous so that each participant could explain them as they wished. One person speaks of military intervention, the other about humanitarian intervention, and another says no to foreign intervention in any form. For us, our program is clear, our loyalties are clear, and our demand for the downfall of the regime is clear. All these matters had been agreed on and there is no ambiguity or disagreement.
OT: How do you view the position of the opposition now? Do you think that differences within it are a type of democracy? Or do they deepen divisions and undermine the unity of the opposition?
HM: The Algerian Revolution was successful despite the fact that there were two separate liberation movements. This means that unity for unity’s sake is not a logical or rational program for change. We cannot accept agreement on any basis, just to preserve unity. The primary objective is a political program and finding common ground to conduct our work. I do not see this as the problem. It is the right of those who joined the National Council to try. Let them see for themselves how far this experiment can go. As for me, I believe it is my duty today to create a strong, civil, national, democratic axis, as it is the only guarantee for the revolution’s success. If the revolution becomes Islamicized, it will fail; if it becomes sectarian, it will fail; and if it becomes militarized, it will fail.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.