Heated debates are held in the Arab world about the "regime" without actually being given this name.

However the regime which is meant by its supporters and some of its opponents, is that which is called in the European languages the regime or exclusively the political system, and not in the broader communal and cultural system, which the regime is considered one of its tiers.
We can venture another definition for the meaning of the revolution, which is the huge event that changes the "system" at the end and is not only satisfied with changing the regime.
According to this standard, we are faced with two significant facts; the first is that a lot of effort is still needed for overthrowing the regime, leave alone the system, not only in Syria, but in other Arab countries like Egypt and Yemen where disputes are still continuing with the "remnants".

The second is that the change of the "regime" in the Middle East, where the political regime confiscates all the political field, and controls all that falls under our noses, it is the inevitable introduction for the changing the "System".

This equation is true to all Arab revolutions, with some distinctive discrepancy, as well as its persuasion to us if way we need be persuaded of the complex of the shifting from changing the regime into changing the system.

We find here different attitudes where each of them branches from a certain political culture.
There are the supporters of the "regime" who entirely eliminate the "system" . This group is full of the opportunists and suspicious people who are excluded from the whole process of revolution and change. 

There are the supporters of the change of the "regime " without changing the system, where the regime continues to repeat the same slogans that had dominated in the fifties and the sixties, and with the same values which the existing system alleges its loyalty to it. This paves the way before it, under the radical nationalism and resistance, to re-create this  "regime" from the "system's" gate.

There are the supporters of changing the "system " into an Islamic style without breaking the tyrant system of the "regime". We find those within the groups of the Islamists, and not all the Islamists, moving into narrow competition circles that are not open into wider horizons, though  their political rhetoric is studded with excess historic spaciousness.

There are the proponents of the "system"  change in isolation from the "regime" before or without it. And thus stipulating the freedom of innovation, the woman rights, and the liberation of the general public space from religion without conditions, or to break the political system, entering practically into a battle with the "regime" , without  affecting the "system" or rather without entering into dual confrontations with it.
The question at the end which contradicts all these attitudes is, what is the method for breaking the regime and shift from there to breaking the "system" or how to embrace the important seeds of the second mission in the first mission itself. There should be no leniency in the confrontation with the old guards of the counterfeited temple and not to volunteer to give sanctity to this temple which has many other names.