The Absence of Trust and the Origin of Hatred Among Syrians
2025-11-19:: Al-Araby Al-Jadeed
Share:
Facebook Twitter Share
Originally published in Arabic
by Mr Burhan Ghalioun
by Mr Burhan Ghalioun
Without the belief of individuals and groups in a diverse society that it is possible to rely on a degree of honesty, integrity, and sincerity in the responses of others, material and emotional exchange and cooperation between individuals become impossible, social relations cease to exist, and civil society is replaced by a state of nature where the law of absolute selfishness and a war of all against all prevail.
Accepting the possibility of establishing sincere relationships with others, free from deceit, fraud, or insult, is what we call public trust. This is a fundamental relationship that precedes the rule of political law and the very existence of the state, and is also a condition for their soundness. Building this trust and positive feelings among individuals is one of the most prominent goals of religion, ethics, and philosophy. This trust and the positive feelings associated with it encourage communication with others and the building of fruitful relationships, thus creating social harmony and limiting the dominance of feelings of fear, suspicion, distrust, and hostility that hinder communication with others. It is what nourishes human values such as honesty, integrity, justice, kindness, forgiveness, and self-control, etc. This is what distinguishes civil societies from primitive societies.
Public trust is a shared moral capital in societies that embodies implicit mutual promises: a promise of safety, a promise of protection, a promise of justice, a promise of solidarity and mutual support, and a promise of meaning. When the individual betrays the promise of safety, society betrays the promise of solidarity, the intellectual betrays the promise of truthfulness, and the educator betrays the promise of integrity, this trust collapses, and society is left with no capital for positive interaction. Fear of the other and mutual rejection replace empathy, and ill will replaces the love of good. The social fabric is torn apart, and violence, deception, and conspiracy replace good morals in regulating social relations. Therefore, trust is not merely an emotional matter, but a political and moral structure that connects individuals. Without it, institutions cannot function, and no social activity can thrive. It is a public moral contract that precedes the political and social contract that establishes the state. No agreement can exist between two or more parties without the belief that a minimum level of trust exists between them, and that the other party is willing to fulfill its obligations. Even governments themselves derive their legitimacy only from the trust of their citizens in their ability to protect their rights and fulfill their obligations towards them.
Trust enhances the feeling of security, encourages cooperation and solidarity, facilitates partnerships, and helps societies avoid many conflicts and resolve them peacefully. Therefore, social trust is a fundamental factor in economic and political progress. When citizens do not trust state institutions, they circumvent its laws by all means. When individuals fear one another, the formation of a civil society becomes impossible.
When every actor sees the other only as an enemy, not a partner, politics, as is the case today, transforms into the management of hostility, which entails demonizing the opposing party, exaggerating their flaws, and absolving oneself of any responsibility. Individuals are left with nothing to rely on but their horizontal relationships—family, tribal, sectarian, and ethnic ties—where they find a minimum level of protection and solidarity, prioritizing these affiliations over political affiliations to the state, parties, and civil administration. A war of all against all prevails, and the need arises for an external force to impose order and compliance through coercion and force. The drying up of the wellspring of trust and the will for the common good is the reason for the backwardness of our social, civil, and political institutions. Officials rely on their relatives—brothers and sons—to manage the affairs of their institutions, from the highest levels of power down to commercial and industrial companies, which are almost entirely family-owned. This also applies to various associations, parties, and civil organizations, where positions of power and influence are monopolized by members of the family, clan, or tribe, with sons succeeding their fathers and brothers succeeding their brothers. When the reservoir of public trust diminishes, the only refuge for building positive cooperative relationships becomes blood or spiritual kinship.
Herein lies one of the most important factors explaining our inability as Syrians to build effective and independent civil and political forces and organizations, and to a large extent, our political bankruptcy and our frequent reliance on external powers to resolve our conflicts and manage our internal affairs. This also explains our acceptance of mutual denigration and our division of ourselves into "sycophants" and "remnants," rather than seeing ourselves as citizens among whom differences of opinion are natural. This has made mutual insult a national currency par excellence.
The Roots of Fear, Suspicion, and Hatred
Trust is not a ready-made commodity in societies; rather, it is the fruit of historical accumulation, forged through long experience and suffering. Its cultivation is one of the main goals of religions, philosophies, stories, biographies, and myths shared across all human cultures.
Generally speaking, Syrian and Arab societies did not emerge from past centuries with a significant legacy of public trust. Historical despotism and the conditions of poverty and misery that prevailed in our societies for centuries dried up the springs of compassion and benevolence, marking relations between individuals with much harshness, cruelty, and selfishness, and reinforcing a tendency to retreat into local, sectarian, and ethnic particularisms.
The governments of military coups that succeeded one another after independence (1946) did not help overcome these negative effects; on the contrary, they reinforced them. The rule of the Assad regime and the security state it established ushered in an era of organized terror, systematic repression, and comprehensive surveillance, posing a moral and political test for everyone and further eroding trust in relations between individuals, and between them and the ruling authority and the state itself.
The security state crushed the slightest margins of freedom and social solidarity, disabling essential mediating and interactive institutions such as political parties, trade unions, associations, forums, and independent media. It transformed the Syrian from a "political being," a citizen, into an "isolated individual" who fears the state and his peers. Suspicion became the basis of interaction, silence the language of survival, and isolation a substitute for communication.
Under the comprehensive security system, society was rebuilt on foundations of fear, suspicion, and mistrust. Informing on others and demonstrating loyalty became tools for survival, lying a means of advancement, and opportunism a condition for safety. Moral values were redefined in a perverse way, so that the honorable were punished and the sycophants rewarded. Fear became a pervasive culture, and free, horizontal relationships between individuals were replaced by vertical ties based on submission, clientelism, and sectarianism. The regime succeeded in emptying national identity of its meaning in favor of fragmented identities, transforming religious and ethnic diversity into a tool of control, and terrorism into a political strategy, thus eradicating all self-confidence and public trust.
The war of extermination waged by the regime to suppress the popular uprising (2011), after forty years of brutal rule, destroyed and fragmented society itself through both physical and psychological violence. The state, in its profound sense and with its institutions, was undermined, politics was uprooted, and the entire population was divided between criminal killers and displaced, desperate victims searching for refuge. Any meaning of community, law, civility, patriotism, and politics collapsed. All parties emerged from this veritable inferno shattered and devastated, both materially and morally: neither the killer nor the victim remained unscathed. In place of trust and hope for the restoration of dignity, unity, and national life, there remained a heavy legacy of hatred, resentment, pain, and unresolved grievances. The entire society entered a state of complete paralysis and mournful rumination, awaiting the unknown, while the ruling class transformed into a mafia-like gang engaged in drug trafficking and the trade of human organs.
The physical and moral war of extermination waged by the regime against the protests of a wounded people not only destroyed the spirit of society and the state, but also annihilated the very meaning of humanity.
This material and moral devastation was exacerbated by the international community's abandonment of its responsibilities during fourteen years of systematic killing and indiscriminate bombing.
The despair and hopelessness were further intensified by the confusion and inability of the Syrian political and cultural elites to understand and cooperate in confronting the bloody ordeal.
This war, waged above and below ground, on the battlefields, within the state, in the media and culture, and on the body of every Syrian, not only destroyed social structures and institutions but also reshaped social memory itself.
Words lost their meaning: "revolution," "homeland," "freedom," rendering the vocabulary of politics, ethics, and trust devoid of any substance. Language itself, the primary tool of communication, lost its function and coherence, and the meanings of its words were altered.
Words became another battleground, perpetuating division. When language becomes a battlefield, there is no longer any meaning to truth or humanity; the words themselves transform into bullets, imposing silence, isolation, fear, and disappearance on everyone.
This material and moral devastation was exacerbated by the international community's abandonment of its responsibilities during fourteen years of systematic killing and indiscriminate bombing.
The despair and hopelessness were further intensified by the confusion and inability of the Syrian political and cultural elites to understand and cooperate in confronting the bloody ordeal.
This war, waged above and below ground, on the battlefields, within the state, in the media and culture, and on the body of every Syrian, not only destroyed social structures and institutions but also reshaped social memory itself.
Words lost their meaning: "revolution," "homeland," "freedom," rendering the vocabulary of politics, ethics, and trust devoid of any substance. Language itself, the primary tool of communication, lost its function and coherence, and the meanings of its words were altered.
Words became another battleground, perpetuating division. When language becomes a battlefield, there is no longer any meaning to truth or humanity; the words themselves transform into bullets, imposing silence, isolation, fear, and disappearance on everyone.
Unfortunately, this decaying corpse of a genocidal war has not found anyone willing to bury it, cover it with earth, and free Syrians from its foul stench.
Among the first to exploit it are the governments and international parties that want Syria to remain weak, divided, and preoccupied with its sectarian and ethnic conflicts, foremost among them Israel and some local parties and militias that believe they have an interest in the collapse of the Syrian state and the division of its assets.
Also participating in this stance are figures who lost their positions with the collapse of the previous regime, and other opposition figures who have become disillusioned with participation and do not want the current authority to succeed in consolidating its power and establishing a fanatical religious authority that contradicts their interests and beliefs.
They are exploiting widespread fear and distrust to mobilize segments of the fearful public to force the authorities to acknowledge their existence and open the doors of participation to them.
They are exploiting widespread fear and distrust to mobilize segments of the fearful public to force the authorities to acknowledge their existence and open the doors of participation to them.
But the most important party is the new authority itself. There is no doubt that many of these parties and their supporters see this societal division and lack of trust as nothing more than an opportunity to seize the automatic loyalty of a ready-made religious majority, and to isolate and marginalize religious, social, and political groups.
This helps them cover up the significant internal and external difficulties they face, for which they have no clear answers. It also provides them with a broad and reliable social base without incurring the high costs associated with respecting civil and political rights, granting public freedoms, and securing decent living conditions for a population whose majority is struggling in a sea of poverty, destitution, and hopelessness. Hence the focus on victory and the disregard for the suffering of the victims.
This helps them cover up the significant internal and external difficulties they face, for which they have no clear answers. It also provides them with a broad and reliable social base without incurring the high costs associated with respecting civil and political rights, granting public freedoms, and securing decent living conditions for a population whose majority is struggling in a sea of poverty, destitution, and hopelessness. Hence the focus on victory and the disregard for the suffering of the victims.
Can trust be restored among Syrians?
Just as the lack of trust is not a natural disaster, restoring it does not require a miracle, but rather good will that holds the conflicting parties, who are invested in perpetuating this distrust within the state and society, accountable for their actions.
Restoring trust in society is not merely an emotional or moral process, but a foundational political act: it is the first condition for building a political community that fosters hope in humanity and in its capacity for cooperation to achieve the common good, and therefore a condition for building modern citizenship. The collapse of trust in Syria was nothing more than the other side of the coin of the demise of politics.
When power is reduced to brute force, and society is reduced to inherited sectarian identities, and individuals are transformed into loyalists and henchmen, trust loses all meaning. It cannot be restored unless people are given back their right to act, to speak, and to receive justice.
Trust, as I mentioned, is not a ready-made cultural given, but rather the product of a collective experience of shared life and constructive and positive interaction among individuals.
Only when Syrians feel that their voices are heard, that their lives are respected, and that the law exists to protect their rights, not to subjugate and control them, will values regain their meaning, despair and hopelessness recede, and trust begin to reappear. To achieve this, the following is necessary:
Trust, as I mentioned, is not a ready-made cultural given, but rather the product of a collective experience of shared life and constructive and positive interaction among individuals.
Only when Syrians feel that their voices are heard, that their lives are respected, and that the law exists to protect their rights, not to subjugate and control them, will values regain their meaning, despair and hopelessness recede, and trust begin to reappear. To achieve this, the following is necessary:
1. Acknowledging the injustice suffered by the victims and their right to moral and actual compensation.
Ignoring this duty, as if nothing had happened, not only keeps resentments alive but also prevents the perpetrators from acknowledging their crimes, leading them to continue believing that what they did was justified, and allowing them to portray themselves as victims and the wronged, thus becoming remnants of a resistance against the new order.
The new authority had to begin with this task: declaring a week of mourning for the victims of genocide and crimes against humanity, allowing them the opportunity to unburden themselves of the deep trauma they had suffered, to tell their stories, and to feel that the entire nation, not just the perpetrators, acknowledged their sacrifices and that these sacrifices were given the noble meaning they deserved.
This acknowledgment cannot be overlooked or bypassed. It is the most precious aspect of justice and a condition for ending the mourning and closing the most prominent, psychological and moral, part of the genocide file.
Ignoring this duty, as if nothing had happened, not only keeps resentments alive but also prevents the perpetrators from acknowledging their crimes, leading them to continue believing that what they did was justified, and allowing them to portray themselves as victims and the wronged, thus becoming remnants of a resistance against the new order.
The new authority had to begin with this task: declaring a week of mourning for the victims of genocide and crimes against humanity, allowing them the opportunity to unburden themselves of the deep trauma they had suffered, to tell their stories, and to feel that the entire nation, not just the perpetrators, acknowledged their sacrifices and that these sacrifices were given the noble meaning they deserved.
This acknowledgment cannot be overlooked or bypassed. It is the most precious aspect of justice and a condition for ending the mourning and closing the most prominent, psychological and moral, part of the genocide file.
2. Achieving justice and accountability according to the law, distinguishing between holding perpetrators accountable for their crimes, arresting and prosecuting the main culprits, and addressing historical or recent collective grievances. Amnesty without acknowledgment or moral compensation for the victims only increases resentment and does not alleviate it.
Justice is not achieved by generalizing the crime to entire groups and sects. Civil rights are individual rights. Generalizing them to entire communities under the guise of grievance does not help resolve the issue, but rather intensifies it by turning it into a tool of collective blackmail that obstructs true justice.
There is certainly sectarian discrimination, and it should be condemned and addressed. However, it is a separate and distinct issue that should be dealt with at the political, cultural, and religious levels, not conflated with the issue of crime in the strict sense of the word.
There are no specific penalties or compensations for grievances in the law; rather, there are perpetrators and victims from all communities, as well as innocent people among them.
Generalizing grievances undermines justice because it lumps together criminals and innocent people in the judgment and extends the accusation to individuals who had no role in the crime, which is a crime in itself.
It may also allow criminals to escape accountability in the name of the perceived oppression of their communities.
There are no specific penalties or compensations for grievances in the law; rather, there are perpetrators and victims from all communities, as well as innocent people among them.
Generalizing grievances undermines justice because it lumps together criminals and innocent people in the judgment and extends the accusation to individuals who had no role in the crime, which is a crime in itself.
It may also allow criminals to escape accountability in the name of the perceived oppression of their communities.
3- Rebuilding the public sphere. Trust only grows in shared spaces: associations, unions, civil platforms, municipalities, and cultural forums.
The more people engage in collective action outside of narrow sectarian divisions, the more individuals and groups will trust each other and themselves. Every successful collective initiative, no matter how small, helps repair a broken thread of trust.
The more people engage in collective action outside of narrow sectarian divisions, the more individuals and groups will trust each other and themselves. Every successful collective initiative, no matter how small, helps repair a broken thread of trust.
4- Assisting and encouraging individuals to move beyond the logic of closed identities to the logic of inclusive citizenship.
This can only be achieved to the extent that this citizenship embodies richer, more diverse, and more meaningful rights, freedoms, opportunities, and a brighter future. This requires an inclusive national discourse, a new form of civic education, and a redefinition of "we" as an open political community, not one where its components fear each other and compete to divide the spoils of the state.
This can only be achieved to the extent that this citizenship embodies richer, more diverse, and more meaningful rights, freedoms, opportunities, and a brighter future. This requires an inclusive national discourse, a new form of civic education, and a redefinition of "we" as an open political community, not one where its components fear each other and compete to divide the spoils of the state.
Trust is not built between closed identities, but between citizens who are equal in rights and responsibilities.
5- Supporting the local and cooperative economy. Trust does not grow through slogans, but through people's participation in work, production, and creativity. Cooperative projects and community economic initiatives serve as laboratories for generating practical trust and confirming that individuals' interests are interconnected.
6- Building trust involves constructing a new national narrative that acknowledges multiple forms of suffering, seeks a shared understanding of what happened, and replaces the conflicting narratives generated by the war, in which each side focuses on its own unique sense of grievance.
This does not mean denying the uniqueness of individual narratives, but rather encompassing them within a single, pluralistic, and truthful narrative that allows people to see each other as human beings, not as enemies.
This does not mean denying the uniqueness of individual narratives, but rather encompassing them within a single, pluralistic, and truthful narrative that allows people to see each other as human beings, not as enemies.
7- Trust cannot be rebuilt through speeches and promises, or through government decrees and decisions, but rather through the development of new and diverse social initiatives, and the emergence of honest local leaders and new, transparent, inspiring, and sincere elites—intellectuals, political actors, and activists—capable of representing values, not defending private interests, and of fostering solidarity, not declaring political and ideological guardianship.
This means: through the accumulation of daily ethical and political actions that help discover the meaning of truth, justice, right, dignity, and citizenship.
This is primarily the responsibility of the state, as the guardian of revealing the truth, upholding justice, and affirming the rule of law, just as it is the responsibility of all those concerned with repairing social relations, clearing away the heavy legacy of the past, and liberating the conscience shackled by chains of doubt, suspicion, and the death of hope and spirit.
This means: through the accumulation of daily ethical and political actions that help discover the meaning of truth, justice, right, dignity, and citizenship.
This is primarily the responsibility of the state, as the guardian of revealing the truth, upholding justice, and affirming the rule of law, just as it is the responsibility of all those concerned with repairing social relations, clearing away the heavy legacy of the past, and liberating the conscience shackled by chains of doubt, suspicion, and the death of hope and spirit.
We must understand that there is no chance of restoring the meaning of citizenship without restoring social trust. Without it, society becomes merely a collection of disparate individuals living on the same land but with divided hearts.
In short, rebuilding trust is a long-term political project that begins with restoring the meaning of truth and accountability. Acknowledging crimes and violations and holding perpetrators accountable is an indispensable condition. Society cannot regain its trust until it sees that injustice is named, that responsibility is assigned, and that human dignity is not a commodity to be bargained over.
في انعدام الثقة وأصل الكراهية بين السوريين
2025-11-19:: العربي الجديد
جذور الخوف والشك والكراهية
لا توجد الثقة جاهزة في المجتمعات وإنما هي ثمرة تراكم تاريخي عملت عليه التجربة الطويلة والمعاناة. وتنميتها هي من الغايات الرئيسية للأديان والفلسفات والقصص والسير والأساطير المتداولة في جميع الثقافات الإنسانية.
وعلى العموم، لم تخرج المجتمعات السورية والعربية من القرون الماضية بإرث كبير من الثقة العمومية.
فقد جفف الاستبداد التاريخي، وظروف الفقر والبؤس التي سادت مجتمعاتنا لقرون، ينابيع الرحمة والإحسان، ووسم العلاقات بين الافراد بالكثير من القساوة والغلظة والانانية، كما رسخ نزعة الإنكفاء على الخصوصيات المحلية والطائفية والاثنية.
ولم تساعد حكومات الانقلابات العسكرية التي تعاقبت على السلطة بعد الاستقلال (1946) على تجاوز هذه الآثار السلبية بل عززتها. وجاء حكم الأسد والدولة الأمنية التي أقامها ليؤسس لعصر الرعب والارهاب المنظم والرقابة الشاملة، ليشكل امتحانا أخلاقيا وسياسيا للجميع، ويضاعف من تدمير الثقة على صعيد العلاقات بين الأفراد وبينهم والسلطة الحاكمة والدولة ايضا.
سحقت الدولة الأمنية أدنى هوامش الحرية والتضامن الاجتماعي، وعطلت مؤسسات الوساطة والتفاعل الاساسية من أحزاب، نقابات، جمعيات، ومنتديات وإعلام مستقل، فحولت السوري من "كائن سياسي" اي مواطن، إلى "فرد معزول" يخاف من الدولة ومن أقرانه. صار الشك قاعدة التعامل، والصمت لغة النجاة، والانطواء بديلاً للتواصل.
في ظل النظام الأمني الشامل، أعيد بناء المجتمع على أسس الخوف والريبة وسوء الظن، وأصبحت الوشاية والولاء أدوات للبقاء، والكذب وسيلة للترقي، والانتهازية شرطاً للسلامة.
أعيدت صياغة القيم الأخلاقية بصورة مضادة حتى يُعاقب الشريف ويُكافأ المتملّق. تحوّل الخوف إلى ثقافة عامة، واستُبدلت العلاقات الأفقية الحرة بين الأفراد بروابط عمودية قائمة على الخضوع والزبائنية والطائفية. نجح النظام في إفراغ الهوية الوطنية من مضمونها لصالح هويات جزئية، محوّلاً التنوع الديني والاثني إلى أداة للسيطرة، والارهاب الى سياسة فانتفت اي ثقة ذاتية او عامة.
وجاءت حرب الابادة التي شنها النظام لإخماد الثورة الشعبية (2011)، بعد أربعين عاما من حكم متوحش، لتقضي على المجتمع ذاته وتفتته بالعنف المادي والمعنوي معا. قوضت الدولة بمفهومها العميق وبمؤسساتها، واقتلعت السياسة من الجذور، وقسمت عموم الشعب بين قتلة مجرمين وضحايا مشردين، يائسين يبحثون عن مأوى.
وانهار أي معنى للاجتماع والقانون والمدنية والوطنية والسياسة. خرجت جميع الأطراف مهشمة ومدمرة ماديا ومعنويا من محرقة حقيقية: لا القاتل سليم ولا الضحية. وحل محل الثقة والأمل باستعادة الكرامة والوحدة والحياة الوطنية إرث ثقيل من الصعب حمله من الأحقاد والضغائن والآلام والحسابات المعلقة، ودخل المجتمع بأكمله في عطالة كاملة واجترار الاحزان في انتظار المجهول، بينما تحولت الطبقة الحاكمة إلى عصابة مافيوية تعمل في تهريب المخدرات وتجارة الأعضاء البشرية.
لم تدمر حرب الإبادة المادية والمعنوية التي شنها النظام ضد احتجاجات شعب جريح روح المجتمع والدولة فحسب، ولكنها قضت على معنى الإنسانية. وفاقم من هذا الدمار المادي والمعنوي تخلي المجتمع الدولي عن مسؤولياته خلال اربعة عشر عاما من القتل المنظم والقصف الأعمى، وزاد من اليأس والقنوط تخبط النخب السياسية والثقافية السورية وعجزها عن التفاهم والتعاون لمواجهة المحنة الدموية.
لم تدمر هذه الحرب التي دارت تحت الأرض وفوقها، في ساحات القتال وداخل الدولة والإعلام والثقافة، وعلى جسد كل سوري، الهياكل والمؤسسات المجتمعية فحسب، بل أعادت صياغة الذاكرة الاجتماعية نفسها. فقدت الكلمات معناها: “الثورة”، “الوطن”، “الحرية”، وجعلت مفردات السياسة والأخلاق والثقة مفرغة من اي مضمون.
أفقدت اللغة نفسها، وهي أداة التواصل الأولى، وظيفتها واتساقها وغيرت دلالات ألفاظها. صارت الكلمات ميدانا آخر لخوض الحرب وتكريس القطيعة. وحين تُصبح اللغة ساحة حرب، لا يبقى معنى للحقيقة ولا للإنسان، تتحول الكلمات ذاتها الى رصاص يفرض على الجميع الصمت والعزلة والخوف والاختفاء.
للأسف لم تعثر هذه الجثة المتعفنة للحرب الابادية على من يتبرع بدفنها وإهالة التراب عليها وتحرير السوريين من روائحها الكريهة.
اول الراغبين في استغلالها هي الحكومات والأطراف الدولية التي تريد لسورية ان تبقى ضعيفة منقسمة على نفسها ومنشغلة بنزاعاتها الطائفية والإثنية وفي مقدمها اسرائيل وبعض الأطراف والميليشيات المحلية التي تعتقد ان لها مصلحة في انهيار الدولة السورية وتقاسم أملاكها.
تشارك في هذا الموقف ايضا شخصيات فقدت مركزها مع انهيار النظام السابق وأخرى معارضة يئست من المشاركة ولا تريد للسلطة القائمة ان تنجح في تثبيت وضعها واقامة سلطة دينية متعصبة تتناقض مع مصالحها واعتقاداتها. وهي تستغل مشاعر الخوف وانعدام الثقة الواسعة لتعبئة قطاعات من الرأي العام الخائفة لإجبار السلطة على الاعتراف بوجودها وفتح ابواب المشاركة لها.
لكن الطرف الاهم هو السلطة الجديدة نفسها. فليس هناك شك في ان أطراف عديدة منها ومن مؤيديها لا ترى في هذا الانقسام المجتمع وانعدام الثقة إلا فرصة افضل لانتزاع الولاء التلقائي لاكثرية دينية جاهزة، وعزل جماعات دينية أو اجتماعية وسياسية وتهميشها. هذا ما يساعدها على تغطية المصاعب الذاتية والموضوعية الكبيرة التي تواجهها ولا تملك الإجابات الواضحة عنها. وهو ما يوفر لها أيضا قاعدة اجتماعية واسعة وموثوقة من دون أثمان باهظة تتعلق باحترام الحقوق المدنية والسياسية واطلاق الحريات العامة وتأمين شروط العيش الكريم لشعب تتخبط اغلبيته في بحر الفقر والفاقة وانعدام الأمل بالمستقبل. من هنا التركيز على النصر وتجاهل عذابات الضحايا.
