Political and social circles in Syria continue to express criticism of the recently issued constitutional declaration from Damascus. Many observers argue that this declaration fails to acknowledge Syria’s diverse and pluralistic nature, marginalizes various Syrian factions and communities, and lays the groundwork for a new phase of crises in the country.
A Narrow Vision of Governance
Dr. Malik Al-Hafiz commented on the matter, stating: "Clearly and unequivocally, the constitutional declaration issued by the transitional authority in Damascus has fallen short of genuine national aspirations for a bright, pluralistic, and citizen-centered transitional phase."
Dr. Al-Hafiz further explained that the declaration seeks to impose a new political reality rather than build a genuine national consensus on Syria’s future. He highlighted that the core issue is not only its unilateral adoption without broad national agreement but also its reinforcement of a narrow governance model, concentrating authority in a single figure—essentially establishing a "supreme leader" model. This approach consolidates certain powers without offering genuine guarantees for citizens’ rights and freedoms. He stressed that true citizenship and democracy are either explicitly absent or implicitly dismissed in this framework.
He added, "At this critical juncture, the constitutional declaration should have been a consensual document representing all segments of Syrian society rather than a mere text that entrenches the current transitional authority’s power, effectively serving as a miniature constitution tailored to the ‘supreme leader’—the symbolic president. The declaration’s provisions will inevitably deepen divisions rather than serve as a step toward political stability."
A Fragile Framework
Dr. Al-Hafiz pointed out that, "The constitutional declaration is not, in any sense, a comprehensive constitution. It is meant to be a temporary legal framework to regulate the transitional phase. However, in its current form, as issued from Damascus, it appears to be an attempt to impose a de facto interim constitution without following the necessary democratic mechanisms required for drafting a permanent constitution."
He emphasized that "constitutions are typically the result of extensive national dialogue and an inclusive political process, involving public referendums and broad discussions among political and legal experts. In contrast, this declaration was issued unilaterally by the transitional authority. Not only does it function as a constitutional declaration, but it also grants sweeping powers to a single ruler—who appointed the drafting committee, the National Security Council, and will appoint the government and preside over it, as well as control a blocking third of the legislative assembly with indefinite extensions of authority. Without accountability or political consensus, this declaration forms a weak foundation that cannot sustain a genuine transition toward a stable, unified, and advanced state."
Damascus' Constitutional Declaration and Ba'athist Constitutions: Cosmetic Differences, Fundamental Similarities
Regarding the key differences between this constitutional declaration and previous Ba’athist constitutions, Dr. Al-Hafiz noted:
"On the surface, the constitutional declaration appears distinct from past Ba’athist constitutions. However, in essence, it reproduces the same authoritarian governance model, albeit with different tools and ideological justifications."
He acknowledged some formal distinctions, such as the removal of rigid nationalist rhetoric, though Arabic remains enshrined in the state’s designation—a matter typically determined by a permanent constitution along with the state's political system. While the explicit emphasis on Arab nationalism, a hallmark of Ba’athist constitutions, has diminished, it has been replaced by a religious-political discourse linking constitutional legitimacy to religious principles. This shift, he warned, could pave the way for more radical transformations in the governance structure.
A Threat to the Civil State
Dr. Al-Hafiz asserted that "the declaration explicitly grants religion a fundamental role in legislation and governance, contradicting the principles of a civil state, which is based on separating religion from political authority and ensuring equal rights for all citizens regardless of religious or sectarian affiliation. The declaration explicitly states that Islamic jurisprudence is the primary source of legislation, opening the door to a religious legal framework that could erode individual rights, particularly for minorities and women."
He further pointed out that the declaration omits any clear reference to democracy, reflecting an apparent reluctance to commit to constitutional obligations that would necessitate actual democratic practices. He stated,
"Democracy entails political pluralism, press freedom, judicial independence, free and fair elections, and the peaceful transfer of power. Yet, the transitional authority appears unwilling to uphold these principles. Instead, the declaration employs ambiguous concepts such as ‘consultation’ or governance based on unspecified principles, allowing broad interpretations that ultimately serve a particular power structure at the expense of genuine popular participation."
A Legal Environment that Perpetuates Authoritarianism
Dr. Al-Hafiz warned that this constitutional declaration could lay the foundation for a new authoritarian regime in Syria. He elaborated: "Like constitutions in authoritarian states, this declaration grants the transitional authority near-total control over political decision-making without any constitutional safeguards for meaningful public or legal oversight."
Moreover, he emphasized that "the declaration fails to specify a clear mechanism or timeframe for concluding the transitional phase, effectively enabling indefinite rule under a so-called temporary framework—an approach that has led to prolonged authoritarian rule in other nations with failed transitions."
He also criticized the exclusion of major political forces from the drafting process, arguing that this exclusion signals an intent to consolidate power rather than to build a pluralistic and nationally inclusive state. A more representative approach, he suggested, would have involved a broad-based council of political and legal experts acting as a transitional governing body with both advisory and executive powers.
In conclusion, Dr. Al-Hafiz outlined the key dangers of the constitutional declaration:
Institutionalizing a de facto regime rather than establishing a modern state.
Granting false legitimacy to an unelected transitional authority.
Creating a legal environment that enables the reproduction of authoritarianism under different labels.
Undermining the principle of equal citizenship in favor of a sectarian or religious identity.
a.k
ANHA
