Since December 8 of last year, the current Syrian government has consistently faced its major obligations through the personal initiatives of leaders and officials that have rarely enjoyed general consensus. These initiatives remain the subject of debate and controversy to this day. Among them, for instance, is the National Dialogue Conference (February 27–28, 2025), which was reduced to something resembling an ineffectual discussion forum, as well as the issuance of the Constitutional Declaration (March 13, 2025), which continues to provoke numerous questions and perhaps reservations among many. Added to these are a series of procedural decisions and positions that collectively point to the government’s keen desire to safeguard its authority from any attempt at penetration or backlash by hostile entities.
Conversely, there are those who argue that the nature of the phase the country is passing through allows for no alternative but to confront matters with bold initiatives, even if tinged with a degree of improvisation, so long as these actions are dictated by a transitional stage during which the authorities can later rectify what needs to be corrected. Yet the question that continues to echo among many is the following:
Why does the government insist on acting unilaterally in decisions that require broad consensus, while it retreats from the individual decisions that would allow such unilateralism? I refer specifically to its handling of the legislative obligation. It would not be unprecedented for any liberation movement or political or military entity that came to power through revolutionary circumstances to form a parliament based on appointments or direct selections by the leadership hierarchy. The chosen individuals would then serve as a temporary legislative council. The interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, could have, for instance, appointed thirty people based on the criteria he deemed appropriate to constitute a provisional parliament, from which a committee could be selected to draft a new constitution, to be later submitted to a public referendum. Had the Syrian president taken that step, he would have had legitimate revolutionary grounds for doing so. But why did the Syrian leadership avoid the path of direct appointment and instead opt for indirect appointment?
It is almost unnecessary to point out that the transitional leadership in Syria, especially at this critical stage, is not seeking Syrian popular legitimacy alone, but also international legitimacy reflected in the positions and reactions of major powers toward any domestic or foreign initiative. This means that the creation of a legislative body must occur through procedures that convey participation rather than individualism. Yet, at the same time, such participation must be safeguarded and yield predictable outcomes that prevent large-scale breaches the current authorities cannot withstand. Based on this, direct appointment of parliamentary members was replaced with an indirect process, whereby the leadership selects a Supreme Election Committee. This committee, in turn, selects subsidiary committees that choose the electoral bodies, so that ultimately fewer than one quarter of Syrians are eligible to vote.
In any case, the electoral process has been completed as planned. It is of little use to dwell on what has already taken place; it is perhaps more constructive to focus collectively on what the new parliament can accomplish for the Syrian people at large, beyond international impressions and external positions.
Read also: Syria: A Nation Without Political Parties
There is, without doubt, a symbolic dimension that cannot be ignored in regard to the first legislative body established in Syria after its liberation from the tyranny of the Assad regime. This symbolic weight imposes upon this new entity a complex task centered on two key matters:
First: The need to establish a new understanding of parliamentary work, one that transcends the traditional notion inherited from eras of despotism, as well as the entrenched image, cultivated over decades, that the parliament, or what was known as the “People’s Assembly,” is merely an auxiliary institution to the regime. Its primary mission had been to reproduce the rhetoric of the ruling system and legitimize its behavior and policies, in accordance with the strategy of the Assad regime, which sought to make every state institution, including the legislative body, a servant of the ruling system and a subordinate arm of the executive authority.
As a result of this functional role defined during the Assad era (1970–2024), specific criteria and conditions were imposed on anyone aspiring to become a parliamentary candidate, criteria unrelated to competence, professionalism, or expertise, but rather directly linked to political and ideological loyalty, or more precisely, absolute obedience to authority. To guarantee such obedience, a candidate’s approval had to be stamped with security clearance from the various intelligence branches. In this way, the People’s Assembly as a legislative institution was emptied of substance, stripped of its true function, and reduced to a formal body providing a platform for members to seek personal gain and influence, feeding the temptation of those who found profit not only in trading their own dignity but also that of their fellow citizens.
The most important question now revolves around the ability of the new members in this new era to break completely with the obsolete pattern of parliamentary work. Can the new representative align with the emerging Syrian consciousness rooted in the principles of revolution and liberation, becoming a true representative of the people’s interests and a defender of citizens’ rights in the face of the ruling authority? This would require a new understanding of parliament as both a legislative and oversight body, and above all, as a constant critical eye on the conduct of power rather than a pair of applauding hands.
Second: This concerns the substance of representation itself, what issues and causes will the member of parliament undertake and defend as popular and national interests? It goes without saying that the People’s Assembly, or parliament, is neither an executive, service-oriented, nor purely political institution, yet it is concerned with all these areas simultaneously, as it is responsible for constitutional and legal legislation that affects every aspect of citizens’ lives. Accordingly, citizens’ priorities must form the first direction of the deputies’ efforts. This requires members of parliament to abandon lofty, slogan-driven rhetoric and focus on people’s concrete needs. What citizens expect from their representatives is not mere chanting of political slogans or hiding behind utopian projects fit only for campaign propaganda. What the citizen truly wants is to secure the fundamentals of a dignified and free existence, the right to food, water, and honorable employment; the right to access all services that the ruling authority must guarantee equally to all citizens without favoritism; and the right to have all freedoms safeguarded, including the freedom to engage in politics, hold office, form political parties and associations, criticize and oppose authority, and establish civil organizations within the bounds of the constitution. All of this requires members of parliament to divest themselves of traditional habits and inherited illusions from previous eras, and to prepare for alignment with the current standards of life centered on the citizen above all. With this renewed awareness, the core principles guiding a member of parliament should be citizens’ rights to freedom, dignity, and civic participation, instead of the hollow repetition of resistance slogans and praise of the leadership’s supposed heroism and extraordinary achievements, a legacy inherited from the previous regime.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of +963 association.
