The opposition

2017-08-15
A- A+
Mhammad Aljundi

The opposition has changed content with time. In slavery past, opposition means enmity. In capitalism history, political parties have emerged. Some of them take the power and some others stay in opposition. In Great Britain, there are more than two parties but only two strong ones alternate on power, the same is in US. Here, the opposition and the stand towards it are mostly peaceful but it is not such when it relates to revolutionary activities. It would be then faced with repression (In her days, British prime, Mrs. Thatcher, has trailed workers along on the ground). In colonialist days, the colonies have known opposition fomented from the exterior, from a competitive colonialist power. E.g. the opposition in 1940s against the French mandate in Syria was fomented from Great Britain, which sought for replacing it. That was transitorily good for the Syrians, as they had no alternative, but transitorily only.

After the second world war, most colonies have gradually obtained independence and formed the third world. Underdevelopment and relations with old colonialist or with American administration have created for the new countries variety of political, economic and social problems. Opposition here was, but it was generally fomented from the exterior. American administration has sought to drive away the influence of the old colonialist powers. So, the American intelligence has created the play of reversing Iranian shah in 1951 and returning him in 1953 with a coup against the victim Mohammad Mosaddegh who was elected democratically. Also, American intelligence has elaborated scenarios of military coups in third-world countries and it has therewith driven away the influence of the old colonialists. That was generally and transitorily good, as it transferred power in third-world countries from tribalist and half-feudalist, social structures to half-bourgeois structures. In Egypt, the coup of 1952 has led to patriotic Nasserist time and the Syrian coups have led to a various set of reforms but the intelligence mines have led, too, to disaster of 1967. Coups of Latin-America and of Indonesia were catastrophic for the victim-countries.

With the tool of military coups, the American intelligence has recourse to create oppositions in various countries. The tools here are “democracy”, sectarianism and obscurantism. American “democracy” has nothing of democracy. Actually, democracy of US is questionable. American constitution is racial, electoral campaigns cost millions, bands, organized crimes etc. threat security of citizens, colored people are smashed. American administration can’t teach democracy, it can only force its “democracy” on other countries. With large cost that has extended from the days of 1917 Bolshevik revolution, American administration could in 1980s force its democracy with destructive plans on the Soviet Union. With similar tools, it could destruct and fragment ex-Yugoslavia.

The use of sectarianism in subversive plans against other countries is old and return to the days of old colonialism. Same American administration has used it in creating Israel and in its subversive plans against the Soviet Union and ex-Yugoslavia but in Afghanistan, it has used the most dangerous sectarianism, i.e. Islamism.

There are more than 1.5 milliard Muslims in the world, most of them live in poverty and in less developed communities. So, with help of money and of sectarianist centers, they may produce armies of subversion everywhere and they have produced. Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya etc. are broken, some have survived but they have difficulties (Egypt, Tunisia etc.). In Syria, the problem is big. “friends” of Syria (more than hundred) have put weight to smash it and, grace to administration and army, it has survived.

A vital point was missed, concerning Syrian opposition. American plans from 1950s on were to subvert countries. Oppositions that were created by it, were neither to spread democracy nor to introduce reforms, any reforms, they were not, as well, against administrations, they were and are against countries. Iraqi opposition in Saddam’s days has thought that it works against despotism and it was in fact against Iraq, which was destructed, humiliated, invaded and fragmented. Maybe the Iraqi opposition is not innocent but there were ones with innocent intentions. Same is for Syrian opposition. it has helped shaking, destroying and fragmenting the country, it has caused woes for Syrian people, for its living, security and survival, for the history of the country.

In third-world countries, the concept of state is generally deformed or, at least, confused. Some admirations see themselves as owners of their countries. So, they see any opposition as competitive enemy and deal with it as such. In the same time, the opposition does not generally see in the administration but enemy and act to overthrow it and for this object, it turns to the exterior.

A third world country, both administration and opposition are generally under exterior influence and this exterior plays with the two partners, in accord with its interests. Demagogy here plays its role.

Patriotic administration is that, which defends the country and tries to develop it and patriotic opposition is that, which helps to defend the country and to develop it.

Recourse to the exterior in interior conflict is unpatriotic and dishonest.               
Comments