The hardest challenge men face in moments of historical transformation is setting a just balance between heart and mind: so that emotion does not overwhelm, and reason does not oppress.

Since the moment of liberation, Syria has stood at the threshold of a new era, laden with great hopes and vast promises—of a state of institutions, good governance, the rule of law, national reconciliation, and comprehensive reconstruction.

The public mood was filled with the spirit of victory and the expectation of a rapid breakthrough that would close the page of tyranny and war, allowing the weary and exhausted people to breathe again after years of hardship, and to embark on a stage of rebuilding, armed with loyalty to those who liberated and healed.

Yet, after this short–long period, it became clear that the gap between declared discourse and lived reality was widening, leaving even the wise bewildered, and forcing us to choose between three paths:

• withdrawing and leaving the experiment to fail,
• joining the camp of silent or cheering loyalists who justify every mistake,
• or adopting constructive criticism that highlights gaps and offers practical plans for reform—this being, in our view, the path most worthy of historical national responsibility.

I repeat: the "new era" in Syria still holds a historic chance to correct its course before mistakes crystallize into a rigid system difficult to dismantle.

Reason tells us that state-building requires time and gradual steps, while the heart tells us that a people who endured years of war and carnage cannot bear another disappointment.

What is required today is balance between the two, through transparent institutional work, broad national partnership, and political humility that admits mistakes and works to correct them.