It appears that this camp has opted for Bashar Al-Assad, not because of any rare talents he might possess, but because of his association with his father's legacy. The elimination of some of the hard-line camp's most important symbols, however, will not make it any easier for the liberals to pull off Bashar's succession. In addition to the embarrassing difficulties inherent in trying to justify the transfer, the old guard remains powerful in all branches of the state apparatus. The hard-liners will not give in easily, and it is difficult to imagine that young Bashar can withstand the storm alone, unarmed and without the unlimited and unrestricted support of a power bloc prepared to see the power struggle through. Further compromising the liberals' position is that Bashar's succession, which rests on his father's legacy, entails an element of continuity, however radical the modernisation and liberalisation programme they may wish to implement.
Continuity can take two forms, however.
The first would be a kind of tutelage in which the liberal camp takes a back seat, permitting for the formation of a regime that concentrates all power in the hands of the president and the sort of hero worship that characterised the rule of Hafez Al-Assad. The second would entail a form of collective leadership in which the role of the liberal wing of the liberal camp would extend beyond a supporting role to the exercise of actual power for a relatively long period. In both cases, one can envision additional problems. Syria's political future will ultimately be determined inside Syria. However, this does not mean that regional and international forces will not play a part, and it appears almost inevitable that they will push for the succession of Bashar Al-Assad.