With regards to what is referred to as the ‘leadership of the movement,’ it is no secret that numerous foreign influences are interfering in the landscape on the street. Interferences take place, either directly or through local agents, through guidance or funding. Most dangerously, they also happen through certain media, particularly television, through the manufacturing of ‘symbols’ and the presentation of such symbols as the headlines of ‘the revolution.’ This began shyly at the start of the uprising, and has grown larger day by day. Respective objectives range from settling internal accounts within the domestic power parties, to dis-owning the past and positioning oneself for after the crisis. New capitalist players are also seeking to strengthen their own fortunes by taking advantage of the bankruptcy to acquire assets left in the country. In addition, there is the objective of targeting the resistance, because of its facing the Israeli enemy, and not because it is a Shi’ite party in some sectarian composition.
The romantic statements about the ‘leadership of the revolution’, whether naive or malicious, tend to break up popular pressure by presenting symbolic faces to nurture conflicts within it, and to scatter its purposes by offering partial demands or popularly justified slogans. However, they do not affect the reality of what we are witnessing and its causes.
The popular movement is a phenomenon of rejection and overthrow of the legitimacy of an authoritarian regime whose very functioning is stalled and disrupted. The responsibility towards the movement lies in the clarity of the political proposition towards a different regime, one based on knowledge, courage, and independence. This is what we are keen on, what we seek to protect, and what we present today.