Syria stands at one of the most delicate junctures in its modern history. More than a decade of war and fragmentation has left the country torn between competing political forces and social groups, with divisions so deep that they block every attempt at national reconciliation. In such an environment, two demands have become central: rewriting the constitutional declaration and convening a genuinely inclusive national conference. Yet the political reality suggests these demands are unlikely to be met.
At its core, a constitutional declaration is meant to serve as a temporary legal framework during a time when a country lacks a functioning constitution. It gives the ruling authority the ability to govern legally and issue regulations until a permanent constitution is drafted and adopted. In theory, this framework should provide a bridge toward stability. In practice, however, Syria’s constitutional declaration is seen by many critics as little more than a political manoeuvre. They argue that the government designed it as a draft-in-waiting, a tool to gauge public reaction and eventually transform into a full constitution during the transitional phase. Instead of uniting Syrians, it has become a symbol of unilateral power.
For Ghazwan Qurunful, a lawyer and legal consultant living in Turkey, the rejection of a national dialogue conference reflects the priorities of those currently in charge. “The ruling forces have no genuine interest in dialogue,” he explains. “They want to monopolize both the state and the authority, excluding the rest of the national community.” To him, the declaration is not a framework for transition but a reflection of absolute power that reduces Syrians to passive subjects, deepens mistrust, and blocks any real reconciliation.
Read also: Damascus and Kurdish-led SDF: Can March 10 Deal Survive Hasakah Challenges?
Political Will Absence
Qurunful adds that for any conference to succeed, it would need to be built on a genuine commitment to place national interests above narrow agendas. It would also require inclusive representation, bringing together the government, opposition, religious and ethnic groups, and civil society. “Only then could the country move toward a new constitutional framework rooted in national consensus”. Qurnful insists that such a process is not only possible but essential: a new Syria can only emerge if legitimacy is grounded in popular will rather than unilateral rule or foreign pressure.
Dr. Fayez Al-Quntar, an academic based in France, makes a similar argument. He believes there are no technical or logistical obstacles to convening a national conference or rewriting the declaration, except for the determination of the ruling government. Since assuming power after the fall of the previous regime in December, it has consistently refused to share authority or decisions.
In his view, the only way out of the current crisis is through an inclusive national conference that brings every Syrian voice to the table. He stresses that such a gathering should produce an interim government capable of organizing credible parliamentary elections in which citizens choose their representatives. Without this, he warns, Syria faces an uncertain and fractured future.
Read also: Did Northeast Syria Conference Highlight Deep Divisions among Syrians?
The Costs of Inaction
Critics argue that delaying constitutional reform and blocking national dialogue not only prolongs the stalemate but also weakens state institutions and fuels resentment among marginalized communities. The current declaration, they note, grants sweeping powers to the president, from appointing the committee that selects members of parliament to controlling two-thirds of the legislature. In effect, it allows the president to shape the committee, oversee the drafting of a new constitution, and then pass it through a parliament of his own choosing, all without a public referendum.
The flaws extend further. Millions of displaced Syrians lack the documents required to participate in political processes, leaving them voiceless in shaping the future of their country. The declaration itself requires the president to be Muslim, a condition that relegates non-Muslims to second-class citizenship and undermines the principle of equality. Moreover, it insists on maintaining the name “Syrian Arab Republic,” a decision critics say marginalizes the country’s many non-Arab groups, including Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Circassians, and Turkmen, while denying their languages official recognition. To many observers, these provisions entrench exclusion rather than heal divisions, ensuring that the declaration cannot serve as the basis of a truly democratic state.
