Over the past few days, a wave of disputes emerged within the Syrian opposition on more than one aspect, whether related to the mechanism of these institutions’ organizational and administrative work, or other aspects that were not detailed. At the same time, the repercussions of these disputes did not go unnoticed by public opinion.
While some involved in political work and observers doubt the opposition’s eligibility and weakness, expressing support for creating new structures, others believe that any new body will not receive support and that the current opposition represented by the National Coalition is a necessity imposed by potential developments to be a party in signing any possible settlement. This does not seem near with the international changes, shifting priorities, and the gradual normalization moves by Arab countries with the Syrian regime without guaranteed announced political change in line with related international resolutions such as Resolution 2254.
These disputes open the door to discussing the issue of the constant presence of certain figures as “faces” of the opposition, along with the absence of other personalities who were once active, and a series of successive losses that have reduced the international presence of the Syrian opposition and weakened serious engagement with them by other countries. This also opens the door to the discussion of “permanent positions,” and the strengths and weaknesses of the political bodies that emerged after the Syrian revolution carrying slogans to fulfill the legitimate aspirations and demands of the Syrian people.
Some believe that the problem of the opposition lies in its detachment from the street and its external affiliations, as well as the policy of “exchanging seats” to maintain certain faces in the leadership of opposition work, headed by a group known colloquially as “G4.”
These individuals argue that the opposition has “lost its popular base,” evidenced by the street’s stance towards it.