At a moment that is meant to mark a decisive break with Syria’s past, public appointments in state institutions have once again become one of the most contentious issues of the transitional period. While citizens and civil servants alike argue that competence and professional experience should form the backbone of rebuilding the state apparatus, mounting testimonies suggest that personal endorsements and informal patronage have become decisive criteria in filling public posts. This has raised fears that the transitional phase may end up reproducing long-standing administrative dysfunction, albeit through new mechanisms and under different labels.
Many Syrians insist that merit is the only viable path to rescuing the country at such a critical juncture, when state institutions are expected to be reformed and entrenched corruption addressed. From this perspective, rebuilding a functioning state cannot be achieved through personal connections or factional recommendations, but rather through transparent standards rooted in qualifications, experience, and professional integrity.
These views reflect a broader and increasingly vocal public debate, particularly in provinces worn down by years of hardship. Questions are being raised not only about appointment criteria, but also about fairness, institutional justice, and the broader implications for rebuilding public trust. For many, the issue is no longer about individual jobs or positions, but about the future of public administration and whether the state can genuinely regain the confidence of its citizens.
From temporary safeguard to a new gateway for corruption
According to testimonies from public-sector employees, the reliance on “endorsement” during the early stages of the transition was initially justified as a temporary safeguard. The aim, they say, was to prevent figures implicated in corruption or past abuses from returning to positions of authority. However, what was framed as an exceptional measure quickly drifted from its stated purpose.
Employees describe how endorsement gradually evolved into a new channel for corruption. Individuals with access to decision-making circles were able to impose preferred candidates regardless of competence or experience, often without meaningful scrutiny of professional records or past conduct. In some cases, this process even facilitated the return of figures previously linked to the former regime, undermining the very rationale on which endorsement had been introduced.
Patronage over competence
Public sentiment increasingly reflects deep unease over appointment mechanisms within government institutions. Many Syrians believe that patronage networks and personal relationships now play a decisive role in recruitment, overshadowing professional qualifications. Others argue that political or factional loyalties have become central to selection processes, while competence and expertise are treated as secondary considerations.
Observers note that these practices have entrenched the perception that non-professional considerations are no longer the exception but the rule. As a result, merit has been marginalised, losing its influence over decision-making processes. Critics warn that this approach does not merely weaken administrative performance but risks fuelling broader social tensions, as feelings of injustice and unequal opportunity accumulate in a society already strained by years of conflict and division.
Defectors and dismissed employees: unresolved files
Alongside these concerns, the unresolved status of defectors and employees dismissed during the years of the uprising has emerged as a particularly sensitive issue. This is especially true for former staff of the Ministry of Interior, many of whom remain in limbo despite extensive administrative experience.
Kamal, a former employee of the Immigration and Passports Department, told +963 that dismissed workers and defectors are still waiting for their cases to be reviewed, even as their former posts have been filled by others. “We have the experience and know how to handle files and procedures,” he said, “yet we remain unemployed, while our positions are now occupied by people brought from northern Syria, some of whom lack the necessary qualifications and were appointed solely on the basis of endorsements from factional leaders.”
For Kamal and others in similar situations, this reality deepens feelings of injustice and raises serious questions about functional fairness, particularly for those who paid a professional price for their political positions in the past but now find themselves excluded from state institutions.
Read also: Bread, Wages, and a Failing Lira: Syrians Face Mounting Economic Despair
Wage disparities: a symptom of flawed appointments
Debate over appointments cannot be separated from the issue of salary disparities within public institutions. Employees have complained of stark differences in pay between staff performing identical tasks within the same departments, with no clear justification.
Analysts see these disparities as a direct extension of flawed appointment practices, where wages become privileges tied to access routes rather than competence or years of service. This, they argue, undermines workplace stability and erodes any remaining sense of institutional justice.
In this context, former Syrian ambassador to Sweden Bassam Al-Emadi issued sharp criticism of current administrative and diplomatic policies. In an article published on the news platform Masdar under the title This Is Not How States Are Built, he warned that sidelining experts in favour of unqualified appointments would ultimately lead to state failure.
Al-Emadi criticised the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ diplomatic performance, citing recent presidential visits to Russia and France. He argued that the absence of specialised preparatory delegations resulted in clear protocol errors, describing the visit to France as an “unforgivable mistake”, particularly given its framing as a summons rather than an equal diplomatic engagement.
He further accused the ministry of marginalising professional diplomats by placing non-specialist advisers and directors above them – a practice he described as “appointing Sheikhs (elders) over professionals”, in stark contrast to international norms that value institutional expertise.
Media institutions cannot afford experimentation
Journalist Ahmed Al-Mathib, a graduate of the Faculty of Journalism and Media at Damascus University, told +963 that appointments in media institutions must be governed by a simple principle: placing the right person in the right position. He stressed that appointing unqualified individuals to senior media roles, including the Ministry of Information, is unacceptable without relevant education, specialisation, or genuine professional experience.
Al-Mathib argued that media is a highly sensitive profession that does not tolerate improvisation or favouritism. Competence and experience, he said, are non-negotiable foundations. While acknowledging that endorsement is a reality that cannot be ignored during the transitional phase, he warned against turning it into a tool for exclusion rather than a mechanism to support qualified professionals.
He also noted that appointing figures associated with the former regime to public media roles would be widely rejected by society, given Syria’s continuing revolutionary context. “Syria is still living through a revolutionary phase with its own particularities,” he said, adding that while the future may allow for purely merit-based appointments once stability is restored, the present moment still requires a clear national stance opposed to the former regime.
Reflecting on his own experience, al-Mathib said that throughout the years of the uprising he never applied for official media positions, knowing that selection favoured regime loyalists, while he was associated with the protest movement in Daraa. His journalism degree, he noted, hung unused on his wall for sixteen years, as his work was confined to revolutionary media activity outside official institutions.
After the fall of the regime, he had expected a genuine opening for qualified professionals. Instead, he said, repeated applications through various employment channels went unanswered, while non-specialists were appointed to key roles. For him, this reality reinforces the perception that appointments continue to be driven by relationships rather than merit – a contradiction of the very idea of building professional state institutions during a phase ostensibly dedicated to reform.
