Disputes can bring advantage only at the political level and by democratic and constitutional means. That still has to be learned. A Committee of both organizations could agree on the 31 December 2011 on some common principles (in a joint paper) and devised a plan to unify the Syrian opposition and the organizing of a Syrian General Conference. In this agreement, important points were addressed as E.g. the consolidation of the separation of powers: legislative, Executive, and judicial; Protection of the foundations of democracy (in particular freedom of expression, Association and freedom of Assembly; political pluralism, and the decentralisation of management). I asked myself but the question why the SNC were explicitly the rights of the indigenous Assyrian Christians and their national existence in their programme mentions, but not considered in this paper? This is me, what about the indigenous people of Syria, some fear. Were influential forces in the SNC against such an agreement, which meant that the Executive Committee of the SNC rejected that agreement.
The Syrian also she rejected revolution General Commission. In the design the new Syrian Constitution has set the regime with a move also Islamist trends and Islamic jurisprudence (Alfiqh) wants to make a main source of legislation. This paragraph leaves open, missed what laws are now taken from the Koran and the Sunna, and some steps in the direction of a modern Constitution. I wonder how one here can talk about secularism, have their main source of laws in the Alfigh. Can we talk about a modern rule of law then? Because the Islamists would want to introduce also likes this. What can again restrict the freedom of the citizens with the Islamic law and rights of Christians will be cut significantly. Here, I see a consensus between the regime and the Islamists give a justice for Christians in the sense of the dhimmi.