On Saturday, June 6, 2026, the Syrian capital, Damascus, witnessed a sit-in under the banner of “Law and Dignity.” This event reflects a growing social and political movement in the new Syria and simultaneously raises a number of profound questions concerning the nature of the relationship between the state and society, between the authorities and the citizens, and between political institutions and means of popular expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Syrian public opinion was divided regarding this sit-in. One group saw it as a legitimate expression of rightful popular demands, while another group considered such actions potentially detrimental to national stability at a time when the modern Syrian state is still taking its first steps toward reconstruction and recovery after years of war and collapse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, interpreting the event solely through the lens of support or rejection is insufficient to grasp its true dimensions. The most important question is not whether the sit-in was right or wrong, but rather why Syrians took to the streets in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is a political and legal error to reduce the situation to a simple stance of support for or opposition to the sit-in itself. Peaceful assembly, as long as it adheres to the law and safeguards civil peace, is a natural right that does not conflict with state-building; indeed, it may constitute a means of correcting its course and improving its performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conversely, it is also impermissible to assume that every popular movement is immune to errors or attempts at narrow political exploitation. Any public phenomenon may be subject to attempts at manipulation by certain parties or individuals seeking to achieve goals that do not necessarily align with the supreme national interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, wisdom dictates that we do not place an absolute mark of rejection on the protesters, just as it is impermissible to grant any movement absolute political or moral immunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vibrant societies are measured by their capacity for debate and managing differences, not by their ability to eliminate any of their participants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We in the Syrian Future Movement have emphasized, in more than one previous study and article, that the continued delay in convening the People’s Assembly represents one of the most prominent manifestations of the political vacuum in the transitional phase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In stable countries, citizens don’t resort directly to the streets every time they want to voice a demand or object to a decision. Instead, there are natural and clear channels that begin with the individual citizen, then proceed to the political party or movement, then to the parliament, and from there to the government, ultimately reaching the presidency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This institutional chain is what transforms popular demands into legislation and public policies, empowering society to influence national decisions in an organized and sustainable manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, when one link in this chain malfunctions, pressure begins to accumulate until alternative outlets are sought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the parliament fails to fulfill its proper role, the street automatically becomes one of the arenas through which citizens attempt to make their voices heard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, sit-ins are not necessarily the root of the problem, as some portray them, but are often merely a symptom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition to the delay in convening the parliament, another problem, no less important in our view, is the stifling and suppression of the activation of political parties and political life in the new Syria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the years of the Syrian revolution and its aftermath, numerous political parties and movements emerged, some predating the revolution, and others born during its course or after its victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, these forces have not yet been granted the necessary space to fully play their role in public life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In reality, political parties and movements are not a burden on the state; rather, they are an integral part of its structure and one of its most important tools for organizing the public sphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They form the bridge connecting society and the state, and linking popular demands to decision-makers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When parties are marginalized, their presence weakened, or their ability to operate restricted, citizens lose the natural channels for expressing their demands, and these demands then shift from institutions to public squares.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here, it can be said that closing political avenues does not eliminate problems, but merely changes the venue where they manifest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite all that has been said about the tension that accompanied some scenes related to the sit-in, there is a positive aspect that should not be overlooked. Anyone following events will notice that the Syrian street was not merely a protest arena, but rather, at many moments, transformed into a space for public debate between two differing visions for the country’s future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Two currents emerged, each with its own interpretation of the national interest. One group believed that taking to the streets was necessary to compel the fulfillment of popular demands, while the other argued that priority should be given to consolidating stability and protecting the nascent state from further instability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although some of the dialogues between the two sides did not always reach the desired ethical and civilized level, and were sometimes marred by emotional outbursts and harshness, the mere fact that the disagreement moved into the public sphere represents a significant development in Syrian public life. During the Assad era, society had no real opportunity to discuss major national issues in the public sphere. Politics was the exclusive domain of the regime, silence was the norm, and fear was the prevailing language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today, simply seeing citizens with differing opinions engaging in dialogue about the state, the law, reform, stability, and the national future\u2014even if the dialogue is tense or incomplete\u2014reflects a degree of societal maturity born from the suffering and harsh experiences endured by Syrians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Indeed, Syrians have learned costly lessons over the past years, and many have become more capable of understanding the complexities of the political and social reality, more aware of the interplay of interests, risks, and opportunities, and more willing to discuss public affairs directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From this perspective, what has transpired can be viewed as a positive indicator of growing public political awareness, not as a crisis to be feared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In our view, these two differing, yet engaging, perspectives would have been better served by converging within active political parties, legitimate political forums, or under the dome of an elected parliament capable of accommodating such debate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
National unity and its transformation into public policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the weakness or absence of these frameworks has driven those with differing visions to take their dialogues to the streets and into the public eye.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, what is needed today is neither condemning nor glorifying the street, neither accusing the protesters nor their opponents of treason, but rather expediting the completion of the political structure of the new Syrian state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What we need today are institutions capable of uniting diverse voices under a single national umbrella.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The delay in convening the People’s Assembly and the delay in genuinely activating political parties will only push political disputes into the streets, where they become more susceptible to tension and polarization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The safest path to building the state lies in opening up the organized political sphere, launching responsible political parties, and enabling the People’s Assembly to fully exercise its role as the unifying national framework for public debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When citizens find their way to political parties, and political parties find their way to parliament, and parliament finds its way to government (within this golden chain), the streets will become a place to celebrate the nation, not a place to search for an alternative to its institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is only here that the difference transforms from a source of concern for everyone into a source of strength for everyone, and the dialogue transforms from a passing argument in the squares into a real lever for building the modern Syria that Syrians dreamed of and sacrificed for throughout the years of revolution and suffering.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
An analytical reading of the sit-in in Damascus: law and dignity, and the role of social awareness in political change.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":64738,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[179,4688],"tags":[4718],"class_list":["post-64740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-political-office-en","category-presidency-office-en","tag-articles"],"yoast_head":"\n