On this month of 2011, the so-called "Arab Spring" began in Tunisia. When Bashar al-Assad's regime fell this year in the same month, it seemed like this "spring" was returning or that a new edition had come to us. If we were to adopt the language of book editions and publishers, we could say that an updated and revised edition has been launched.
When an updated and revised edition of any book is released, publishers publicize this on the book's cover. The first edition remains essentially the same, and there is almost no change to the content. We find minor additions to the book here and slight revisions or amendments there, and that’s all there is to it.
We get this sense from the scene in Syria, whether during the few days before Assad's government fell or during the days that followed as a transitional government headed by Mohammed Al-Bashir, an engineer who is part of Sharaa’s inner circle, was formed.
Dubbed the new strongman in Damascus since he replaced Assad, Sharaa changed his name, dropping his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammed Al-Golani. He not only changed his name, he also changed the name of "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham" and now calls his organization: the new authorities, the operations room, and names of that sort. In any case, what matters is that the name is gone, and the man has begun wearing a suit and tie, retaining nothing of his old appearance but his beard. No one knows whether he will keep it or wake up one day and decide to shave it off.
We remember that the first edition of the "spring" was overseen by a Democratic American administration headed by President Barack Obama. Is it a coincidence that the updated and revised edition also broke out under a Democratic administration? It's not just Democratic; current US President Joe Biden was Obama's vice president when the first edition was released. So, is this also a coincidence, or is it a sign of alignment between the administrations and their ideas?
In the first edition, the fundamental idea was that not all Islamic political groups are the same. Some are extreme, violent jihadists, and others are moderates who do not believe in violence, extremism, or militancy; having the latter in power here in the region could allow for absorbing the former. If the moderates absorb the extremists, then the West would be spared the repercussions of extremism, violence, and militancy.
That was the idea, regardless of how accurate it proved to be, and that is how it was presented to the West and the United States in the post-9/11 era. The Muslim Brotherhood was promoted along these lines in American and European circles. Türkiye was also involved in this promotion campaign. Today, with this updated and revised edition, things have not changed much.
On these grounds, the road to power in Egypt was opened to the Muslim Brotherhood, and they maintained it for an entire year. However, it was not a good year for Egypt or the Egyptians. The bet that the group would govern responsibly proved misguided. Consequently, they lost power; it was inevitable. They failed to understand that they were a group, whereas Egypt was a nation. In government, the nation should be put forward, with the group receding into the background.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt failed to understand this fact, or they understood it but chose to do nothing. They did not realize that power meant greater scrutiny. They lost power because they failed the test, and they should have seen it coming because a country like Egypt cannot be ruled by a group that puts itself and its members above all else.
This principle applies to any country where a group with its particular ideas, which cannot necessarily align with the national interest and the interest of the state, comes to power.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham would be well advised to take this matter seriously. Indeed, the signals they have sent since coming to power have often reassured people in Damascus, but we find broad apprehension elsewhere in Syria. Their kind words are not enough. People cannot live on words alone; they live on actions, interact with them, and respond to them.
