HOMS of our special correspondent

Syrian communist militant imprisoned during more than seventeen years without charges nor judgement because of his political activities, Riad Turk, released in May 1998, account among the very rare opponents to dare to show a certain freedom of word in Syria. He severely condemns the process of succession open after the death of Hafez El Assad, June 10. The Green light that could give, Tuesday June 27, the Syrian Parliament convened exceptionally since Saturday should make it possible to the son, Bashar to be placed as his turn to chair the "Republic" following a plebiscite-referendum which could be organized before even the forty days of mourning end issued in Syria.

-" In the two weeks space, Bachar El Assad became at the same time the head of the Syrian armed forces and the leader of the Baath party. ....... What do you think this process?

* These changes do not have anything astonishing. In the psychology of Hafez El Assad, Syria had become a personal property. It should have been bequeathed/granted as if it belonged to him, like a heritage. During his thirty years of being in power, Hafez El Assad gradually emptied the institutions of the country of their contents. The true authority passed to the presidential palace, where very significant files passed to become the work of many persons charged with, but completely unknown to the people, and to the Intelligence services, spying the ones against the others. The legislative power of the Parliament disappeared, just as the executive power of the principal ministries, besides that of the Foreign Affairs and part of that of defense: the military intelligence. In the same way, Baath, which constituted a pillar of the regime, does not function any more like one true political formation. The militants hardly have more links with it than by the payment of the contribution and the convocations when one needs them. A true political party is not satisfied with a congress every fifteen years, as it is the case for Baath.

- the new composition of the regional command of Baath, its supreme authority, doesn't it however represent a change?

* "the surprise " of the congress/parliament, is especially that the changes were less large than envisaged. Undoubtedly because the death of the president has not made it possible for him to do necessary arrangements/preparations for his son which would have been possible under his authority, and which had begun these last months with the calling into question of certain persons in charge of the government.

- What do you think of the next presidential referendum which will be organized after the lowering of forty with thirty-four years - that of Bashar El Assad - minimum age to be candidate?

* That is rather laughable; one makes fun of the people or mocks them. It is well the proof that nothing changes. I will not vote for Bashar El Assad and I say it publicly. It is a masquerade. In any event, he/Bashar does not need my voice, He is already elected by the force of the electoral fraud which misleads the will of the people.

- Bachar El Assad evokes reforms for Syria. What do they inspire to you?

* He/Bashar speaks of reforming the economy, the administration, and of developing new technologies. But, in my view, the urgent reform for Syria is a political reform. It is necessary to give again the voice to the people, and for the Parliament to have again the capacity to control the State. Without this return to the republican principles, Syria will remain what it is today: a totalitarian mode, a hereditary Republic. For evoking an administrative reform, it is first of all necessary to change the Constitution which specifies that the Baath party decides on all. One sees it for the election with the presidency of the Republic, since it is the only one with being able to propose a candidate and that the people do not have the choice. It is also necessary to release the political prisoners, to open the media and to allow exiled to be able to re-enter to Syria.

- You are not convinced by the fight against the corruption engaged by the mode?

* the system of government monopolized by the regime has weakened the legislative framework/power. The laws are not observed any more since there is no more popular control. In the democracies, the citizens have the capacity to return the political leaders with the elections. It is not the case in Syria. The results of this practice were catastrophic and the Syrian regime was obliged to realize it. The State became a feudal system, small Mafias or small dictators, who do what they want on the condition of obeying punctually the commands come from the top. The tendencies to become corrupt are present everywhere, even in Europe, but the consequences are stronger in Syria because they widen considerably the gaps between the social classes. There was recently, it is true, a change of Prime Minister, but why thus replace a man whom he/Assad only admitted today as corrupt, by somebody who does not have an indisputable reputation on the matter with the public opinion?

- There is not true opposition today in Syria. Do you think that this situation will change in the future?

* the change always needs a political and social support which does not exist yet in the country. But the social crisis that we cross is serious and is likely to worsen, just like the gap between the regime and the people "

Interview by Gilles Paris
Le Monde, Wednesday June 28 2000