The opposition concept is a novelty in the world of politics. It did not exist and even was not justified in authoritarian regimes, or in countries ruled by one party, as well as in the tribal system, where there was no room even for an opinion in opposition to the leader in the assembly of the human.

In spite of this, it has been known to the ancient Greeks who created the opposition while pointing at some sort of political sociology, represented in the selection of the deputies by referendum. With the development of human societies and their stability, people who were victims of forced labor aspired to obtain their human rights, to face the slavery systems; people lived revolutions in many civilized societies as the Spartacus revolution in Athens and the Zinj revolution in Iraq. The opposition has taken a negative form among the Arabs across the striking phenomenon led by tramp poets such as «Shanfari» who abandoned their tribes and started to oppose the social relations through poems.

The democratic opposition in considered among the sublime forms of objection to the methodology of government, and is strongly present in the stable democratic systems. This opposition, envisages change through discussion and dialogue, they constitute, by implication, an objection to the performance of the Authority, and not on the nature of the system. And thus, the government continues to rule automatically, whether the opposition has succeeded or failed in taking the helm. The opposition believes in the existence of the other and respects his political, social or economic point of view, without believing in it or calling for it.

And the opposition, in this highly placed case, is not in conflict with the ruler on the basis of exciting the street and provoking the masses through demonstrations overwhelming, or through creating chaos or spreading terror and unrest. They practice criticism and point at the errors of governance. They aim at reform as a prelude to reach power through ballot and get a majority in the parliament.

This quiet and meaningful opposition is guaranteed by the democratic system, because it enshrines the power exchange as a unique feature unlike the other systems.

What distinguishes this kind of opposition is that they recognize the right of the other to rule, as long as he has the majority in parliament. He will have the consent of the other party to rule and install public order, apply his theory of government, while the opposition abides to the law that ensures the proper functioning of the state organizations. This opposition does not raise troubles and obstacles in the application of governance, development plans and relationships, even though it might not approve them in whole or even in part.

This opposition, despite being out of the governing party, is a particularity of the democratic system, in terms of being subordinate to fixed criteria based on the principle of separation of powers, the neutrality of the army and other armed forces. It ensures the non-interference of these forces in the political field - which is depending to the civil power - and limited its activity in defense of the homeland and in the maintenance of security.

It is true that the opposition in a democratic system is not an essential element in power but it is an element of control over the executive branch. It shows its mistakes and limits its exclusivity of governance, whether in the media or through accountability and debate in the parliament, without leading this discussion and that accountability to corrupt public order and destabilize society. Thus, the opposition represents a safety valve to the state and society, by calming the street, keeping the pace of the power. And, at the same time, it is engaged in conflict with the power in the ballot box. Thus, the opposition formed an important element of the state, and the most eminent of the characteristic features of the democratic system. It calls for peaceful change and relations within the fields of power and authority while ensuring harmony between the citizen and those in charge of public affairs.