The term “reconciliation” has become provocative for many Syrians, perceived as surrender, failure, or even betrayal. This is not surprising in a country where words like freedom, revolution, democracy, peace, and dialogue have become frightening to various factions and their supporters. Perhaps one should avoid such terms to escape insults and accusations of betrayal. However, one of the most difficult challenges facing the country is the fear among intellectuals of populist opinions and Facebook attacks. This fear has led political and cultural elites to hesitate in confronting reality and proposing necessary but difficult solutions. So, what is the way out of this impasse?
We may find the answer in Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi’s words: “Whoever undertakes public service must give some of what he offers to people in charity, because he will inevitably be reviled, even if he continues day and night.” The word “reconciliation” has received its share of skepticism and interpretation from all parties, and it will continue to do so.
This does not mean that reconciliation should be removed from the Syrian lexicon. However, its success requires answering several critical questions: Is reconciliation desired between opposing societies? Between society and the state? Or between the opposition and the authorities? How does reconciliation address injustices? How do we reconcile when tens of thousands are still missing, detained, or forcibly disappeared? How do we address the refugee issue? How will reconciliation address the country’s division and the existence of de facto powers with different laws and institutions? How will it deal with tens of thousands of fighters under various banners? How will people reclaim their property?
Answering these questions is not a prerequisite for dialogue, but without answers, reconciliation will seem like a superficial attempt, akin to tribal reconciliations, potentially sowing the seeds of future conflict. Thus, dialogue is crucial to reach possible answers and build common perceptions of realistic steps toward broadly accepted solutions. Building this acceptability requires breaking many preconceptions and stereotypes, pushing us to the brink without a clear lifeline.
Breaking stereotypical ideas does not mean indulging in idealism, as there are limits and frameworks we cannot afford to transcend. A dialogue that does not consider the meaning and essence of Resolution 2254, with its constructive ambiguity and multiple possibilities for interpretation, will not cross the threshold of a solution. This means that the answers to the above questions must be determined as goals, not preconditions; otherwise, dialogue becomes absurd.
Therefore, a national dialogue that may achieve significant reconciliation must consider the following premises:
- Reveal the Fate of the Detainees and Kidnapped: Any reconciliation requires revealing the fate of the detainees and kidnapped. The pain and torment of their families will undermine any agreement if not addressed. This is one of the most difficult challenges of reconciliation. Practical mechanisms for this process must begin with initial confidence-building steps, which may extend for years. This issue should not be exploited for political points but addressed diligently to find practical solutions.
- Long-term Process: Reconciliation and dialogue cannot be one-time events. They are long and arduous processes starting with the recognition of their necessity to protect the country from division. This process should branch out into official paths, like the Constitutional Committee, and unofficial, national, and local paths.
- Syrian-led Dialogue: Any dialogue must be truly Syrian-led, not just slogans. While regional and international guarantees are necessary, the dialogue must be conducted by Syrians. Neither the special international envoy’s good offices nor the United Nations mechanisms will succeed unless Syrian parties commit to finding a solution and cease blaming each other for obstructing it.
- Inclusive Reconciliation: Reconciliation must include all existing powers without exception. Excluding any forces controlling land, resources, or large segments of Syrians means marginalizing millions and re-feeding the roots of conflict. Dialogue should encompass the government, political opposition, armed opposition, self-administration, armed forces in Daraa and Suwayda, among others, to prevent further division and conflict.
But why does reconciliation seem so surprising? What is the essence of Resolution 2254? The resolution calls for the full implementation of the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012, including establishing an inclusive transitional governing body with full executive powers based on mutual consent, while ensuring the continuity of government institutions.
The key phrase is “mutual consensus,” meaning the transition process requires consensus, which in turn requires concessions and serious dialogue among Syrians. No external saviour will resolve our differences. Mutual agreement, reconciliation, dialogue, and political process—call it what you will—require stopping the demonization of these concepts. Dialogue is a supreme value, essential for a unified Syria. Without dialogue, we risk permanent division and the transformation of all Syrians into servants of others’ interests.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
