The National Dialogue Conference in Damascus, which brought together hundreds of participants to discuss Syria’s political future, ended last week in a mix of optimism and criticism.
The first national-level event since the fall of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime presented a long-awaited opportunity for Syrians to come together and deliberate on their country’s future after nearly 14 years of civil war. It saw some 600 people of various backgrounds from all over Syria attending the discussion at the presidential palace in Damascus.
The one-day conference was hosted by the new governing authorities headed by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which led the December offensive that ousted Bashar Al-Assad.
Since the collapse of the Assad regime, decisions regarding the transitional process and the temporary administration have so far been ambiguous, and the interim government’s structure remains unclear.
Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of HTS, formed the preparatory committee for the conference, filling it with individuals linked ideologically or politically to the former insurgent group and resulting in a board largely dominated by Islamists. The seven-member committee was composed of five men and two women.
Talking to The New Arab, Rami Jarrah, a Syria observer and former war reporter, welcomed the chance for Syrians to exchange ideas but criticised the event as a promotional exercise by the ruling authorities rather than a participatory platform that reflects Syrian aspirations.
“It should have been a conference with authority, happening daily from the start,” he said, suggesting that holding the dialogue before Ahmed al-Sharaa was named president for the transitional period would have given it credibility. He also said that the word “democracy” was absent from the closing statement although it was discussed during the talks.
The Syria expert voiced concerns about HTS’s leadership and the current one-sided political environment, where al-Sharaa holds broad powers which include being able to form a government and establish legislative and constitutional committees.
The dialogue was also far from inclusive. Many prominent figures, inside and outside Syria, could not attend since they had received invitations less than two days earlier. People were invited as individuals rather than as civil society representatives, religious communities, and political groups.
Members of the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of north-east Syria and other Syrian Kurdish leaders were sidelined. Furthermore, an online survey for participants removed respondents from the governorates of Hasakah and Raqqa, where the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) hold control.
“Nobody well understood on what basis people were invited,” Rena Netjes, an independent researcher focusing on northern and north-eastern Syria, told TNA, adding that numerous public figures, businessmen, and tribal leaders were left out, raising concerns about marginalising key components of Syrian society.
On the other hand, she pointed out that a forum like this hadn’t taken place in Syria for 54 years under the Assad family’s dictatorship. “I see a lot of enthusiasm among Syrians. Many are working very hard to make it succeed.”
|
|
The lack of representation in the preparatory committee and the limited range of attendees risked undermining the credibility of the national dialogue initiative. Furthermore, the discussion rushed through complex topics such as transitional justice, the constitution, freedoms, the economy, and civil society, lacking the substance needed for meaningful engagement.
The symposium concluded with a final statement including broad commitments to national unity and human rights, the setup of a constitutional drafting committee, and the formation of a legislative council to oversee the transition, among other points. Nonetheless, the recommendations in the closing communiqué are non-binding, allowing Syria’s new leadership to dismiss them.
“The discussion itself was a step forward, but the way it was framed and delivered to the Syrian people wasn’t ideal,” Ibrahim Al-Assil, a Syrian political scientist and senior fellow at the Middle East Institute (MEI), told TNA. In his view, the roundtable didn’t serve the purpose of generating legitimacy.
The geopolitical expert underlined that the timeframe for conducting the workshops was too short to effectively tackle far-reaching subjects. He mentioned that certain issues of concern, like the realities of minority communities such as the Kurds, Alawites, and Druze, were overlooked.
The hasty process, combined with the non-robust nature of the deliberation and its vague outcomes, failed to provide a clear roadmap for the transitional period.
“A national dialogue should be organised over a longer period of time, involve people from across the entire political spectrum, and cover a wide range of issues in depth,” Ammar Abdulhamid, a Syrian-American pro-democracy activist, said in an interview with The New Arab.
From his standpoint, it’s particularly important to ensure the true inclusion of Syrians from different political backgrounds. Above all, he thinks the process needs to be continuous, engaging people and making them feel they are shaping their country’s future.
“The dialogue should be ongoing and more substantial,” reiterated Abdulhamid, who’s been living in exile in the Washington area since 2005. He recognised the interim leadership’s “good intentions” in initiating public debate but advocated for the inclusion of an expert base to prevent it from being limited to or controlled by the transitional leader’s inner circle.
For almost three months, Syria has been governed by a temporary administration. A new transitional government, which is due to be unveiled soon, is set to be more technical and diverse. But it remains to be seen how representative it will truly be.
“Governing part of Idlib and West Aleppo is very different from governing the whole country,” Netjes said, highlighting that many Syrians don’t feel represented by the “one colour” interim government.
Jarrah believes that the incoming cabinet will likely still be of “one colour” reflecting al-Sharaa’s ideology. While the interim leadership may make inclusive appointments in non-sensitive sectors, loyalists will likely remain in strategic roles like the military, intelligence, and economy, he added.
According to Abdulhamid, the next government should be “technocratic” and defined by skills rather than ethnic, social, or religious representation. He argued that having qualified individuals with the right expertise for each role is what’s most critical at this time.
“The current administration shows a lot of pragmatism,” Netjes noted, implying that al-Sharaa and his team may well navigate Western pressure for inclusivity while managing opposition from HTS hardliners against a broad-based government.
For Al-Assil, the kind of political system Syria will have and the process that leads to it are equally important going forward. “The process will reflect the system’s legitimacy and determine the future of Syria,” the Middle East scholar affirmed.
A debate about Syria’s future, sparked by last week’s conference, is unfolding as the country’s authorities come under significant pressure from multiple fronts in a highly fragile security setting.
American sanctions remain in place on Syria, crippling its economy and impeding any hope of rebuilding. Qatar’s aid to Syria for public sector salary increases is delayed due to uncertainty over US sanctions. The Islamist rulers in Damascus, who have been promising to form an inclusive government, want to see international sanctions lifted.
In addition, Syria’s interim president is under pressure from Turkey to act against the areas under Kurdish SDF control in the northeast. However, the US, France, and some Arab nations are pushing Damascus to recognise Kurdish rights thus placing the new rulers in a tough spot with Ankara, one of their main allies.
|
|
Moreover, Israel has expanded its presence in southern Syria and is seeking to lobby the United States to keep Syria weak by maintaining sanctions and letting Russia retain military bases there to counter Turkey’s influence in the country.
Israel is also using Syria’s Druze to sustain its military influence in the south under the guise of protecting minorities. Following Assad’s removal in December, Israel moved forces into a UN-monitored demilitarised zone within Syria.
“There are spoilers everywhere. Sharaa is in a position where he tries to please everyone. Will he succeed?” Netjes asked, alluding to the deeply volatile security landscape.
The researcher, who has extensive field experience in Syria, stressed that the country’s economic recovery hinges on lifting sanctions. Without it, banks can’t move money, investors can’t fund reconstruction, and energy supplies remain stalled, risking disaster.
“Sharaa finds himself in a peculiar position at a time when Syria is grappling with serious issues of unity,” Jarrah said.
Alessandra Bajec is a freelance journalist currently based in Tunis.
Follow her on Twitter: @AlessandraBajec
