Debate has intensified in the Syrian political sphere in recent hours over the new method of electing members of parliament, which took place through what is known as “electoral bodies.” a mechanism adopted as an alternative to direct voting, on the pretext of organizing the electoral process and expanding organized community participation. This temporary system was introduced in response to the exceptional circumstances the country is going through, despite clear differences of opinion regarding its legitimacy and idealism.
Under the new system, electoral committees elected 140 members to the first parliament under this structure, while President Ahmad Al-Sharaa appointed 70 members, completing the 210-member assembly. The country was divided into 50 electoral districts across 11 of Syria’s 14 governorates, with seat allocation varying according to population density. Subcommittees were tasked with forming the electoral bodies in each district, while the Supreme Electoral Committee issued the final lists of candidates in 11 provinces. The process excluded Sweida (predominantly Druze), as well as Al-Hasakah and Raqqa in the self-administration areas of northeastern Syria, reflecting the continuing challenge of achieving comprehensive political inclusion under this electoral framework.
Broader Representation?
According to the amended electoral laws, the electoral bodies are composed of representatives of trade unions, professional associations, popular organizations, chambers of commerce and industry, and local councils. These bodies elect their representatives to the People’s Assembly instead of relying on direct public voting. A former member of the Constitutional Committee, who requested anonymity, told +963: “The idea was to make parliament more representative of productive and professional sectors by granting unions and associations the authority to nominate and elect their own representatives, ensuring a professional and specialized voice in the chamber.”
The mechanism begins with the formation of electoral bodies in each governorate based on approved lists. Nominations are then opened within each body under defined criteria related to membership and expertise. Elections are held within each body to select representatives according to their designated quota in parliament, after which the results are submitted to the Supreme Electoral Committee for ratification. Thus, only citizens who are members of these bodies can vote, effectively limiting direct public participation in favor of institutional and syndicate-based representation.
Read also: Syria’s First Post-Assad Parliament: Elections Without the People
In a limited public survey conducted by +963 across several Syrian regions, opinions varied between those who viewed the new system as “a way to organize and reduce chaos” and others who argued it “undermines citizens’ rights to directly choose their representatives.” Some respondents expressed no clear stance, saying the ends mattered more than the means.
This debate reflects Syria’s complex post-Assad political reality, where hopes for a new democratic path clash with fears of renewed power monopolization through old-new mechanisms amid deep security and geographic challenges threatening both the unity and legitimacy of the process. The key question remains: Are Syria’s elections a step toward change or a reproduction of the same reality, flaws included, without genuine intent for reform?
Supporters of the electoral body system argue that it is a practical and suitable step under Syria’s current exceptional political and security conditions. Hassan Al-Daghim, a member of the Supreme Committee for Parliamentary Elections, told local media that the system affirms the legitimacy of the legislative institution while ensuring representation for qualified individuals who would not otherwise reach parliament through direct voting. He added that this system “strengthens state capacity, eases international pressure on the new government, and presents an image of political transition that marks the beginning of a new political life appropriate for the transitional phase.”
Why then exclude direct voting as a means of parliamentary selection? Al-Daghim repeats the same arguments: “It is difficult at this transitional stage to conduct a comprehensive and accurate voter census, especially after large-scale displacement, refugee flows abroad, the loss of documents, and the absence of many citizens in detention centers. This makes creating precise electoral rolls nearly impossible, in addition to logistical difficulties in organizing voting for Syrians abroad.”
Excluding the Ordinary Citizen
What, then, of democracy? Political analyst Dr. Abdullah Al-Ahmad told +963: “In modern systems, democracy is not measured by the number of participants but by how accurately they represent active segments of society.” Supporting Al-Daghim’s view, he added: “Electoral bodies ensure representation for professionals, workers, farmers, and traders, free from sectarian and clientelist influence.” Journalist Rana Mustafa, a parliamentary affairs specialist, disagrees. She told +963: “Holding elections through electoral bodies without direct popular voting distances ordinary citizens from political participation. The process becomes an internal contest among limited elites, often aligned with official directives. This reduces pluralism and weakens genuine representation.”
Mustafa’s opinion mirrors that of the Syrian opposition inside and outside the country, which condemns the indirect election model as a replication of the old regime’s practices under a new guise. According to opposition figures, the electoral bodies do not represent the people directly but instead reinforce executive control and prevent free elections.
Writer Nidal Mahmoud told +963: “This electoral model, based on indirect voting, is used in countries such as China and Cuba, where single-party or centralized systems prevail. In these models, local councils and loyal electoral bodies select representatives to the national assembly. Such systems are not adopted by governments seeking to expand direct popular participation.”
Read also: Syria’s Secularism Debate: Fears and Hopes
A Renewed Crisis of Trust
Analysts have focused on field experiences in some governorates that revealed structural shortcomings in the system, most notably in Deir Ezzor. Political analyst Najm Saqr told +963 that the parliamentary elections in Deir Ezzor “practically embodied the fears of opponents of the new system, reproducing the old scene in a new form. Competent candidates were absent, and tribal loyalties, long entrenched by the former regime, dominated. The tribe once again became the political and social incubator guiding voter choices, with little room for clear programs or visions.”
Saqr added: “What happened in Deir Ezzor highlights a fundamental flaw in representation through electoral bodies, as the process turned into competition among tribal and regional loyalties rather than a democratic entitlement.” He also criticized the closed-list system imposed in some districts, arguing that it “undermines fair participation and excludes broad social segments. Low voter engagement and the absence of qualified candidates reflect a profound crisis of trust in the electoral process.”
He concluded that the Deir Ezzor elections clearly demonstrated the continued influence of remnants of the previous regime under new faces, exploiting tribal legacies to recycle traditional power structures in new political forms. “What happened is merely an extension of power monopolization by different means. The people of the governorate, and of Syria as a whole, must transcend divisions and work toward a unifying national principle that restores the true meaning of elections: a vehicle for change, not a tool to reproduce the old reality.”
An Experiment That Requires Assessment
Journalist Mohammad Riyad noted that the parliamentary elections in Syria were the first since the fall of Assad’s regime on December 8, 2024, and were conducted in accordance with the temporary constitution adopted in March 2025.
The constitution established a provisional People’s Assembly and reflected the Presidential Decree (June 13, 2025) issued by Interim President Ahmad Al-Sharaa, which created the Supreme Committee for Legislative Elections composed of 11 members. The committee formed sub-electoral committees of at least three members under specific criteria and established electoral bodies in each province. Each body included about 30 to 50 members per seat, with 20 percent of seats reserved for women.
These electoral committees were structured into two categories: the first group, the “notables,” included community leaders with broad local legitimacy and at least a high school diploma, making up 30 percent of committee members; the second group, the “qualified,” consisted of academics, experts, and representatives of professional unions, making up 70 percent and required to hold a university degree or equivalent. Some committee members were replaced following appeals filed by citizens.
Riyad told +963 that between those who see this as institutional renewal and those who view it as democratic regression, the parliamentary elections through electoral bodies remain a unique experiment in the Syrian context. They require transparent, objective evaluation to balance specialized representation with the citizens’ right to direct participation in shaping national decision-making.
