Transitional govt. faces credibility test after March 10 Agreement 

Yesterday, several cities in Syria witnessed pro-transitional government marches, on the eve of the anniversary of the fall of the previous Syrian regime, as the political scene enters a highly sensitive phase.

Although these mobilizations appeared publicly as demonstrations of popular support, observers described the events as reflecting a duality within official discourse, alongside a disconnect between the government’s declarations and the actual practices on the ground.

While the transitional government limited itself to presenting the marches as evidence of popular backing, these gatherings featured speeches from their platforms that were sectarian and inciting in nature, targeting various Syrian communities including Alawites, Druze, Kurds, and Christians, broadcasts of which were aired on state television.

The speeches were described as contradicting the principle of national unity and raised concerns that these events might be politically exploited beyond their declared purpose, in the presence of transitional government officials.

This development comes despite the signing of an agreement last March between the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces and the transitional government, which included clear provisions on guaranteeing the rights of all Syrian components, rejecting hate speech, combating sectarianism, and promoting national unity.

It also comes despite what is stated in the so-called “constitutional declaration” of the transitional government, which stipulates the government’s full commitment to rejecting hate speech and division among Syrian society’s components, working to enhance civil peace and protect national unity, and taking all necessary measures to ensure peaceful coexistence among all Syrians without religious or ethnic discrimination.

However, the silence of official authorities regarding the divisive speeches during recent marches has raised questions among Syrians about the government’s commitment to the provisions of the March 10 agreement and its constitutional declaration, amid concerns that these principles may have been “blown away” by practices contrary to what was pledged.

Since yesterday, Syrians have been warning on social media that the continuation of this approach could deepen internal divisions at a time that requires strengthening trust and actual implementation of coexistence principles, rather than merely declaring them.

Between official rhetoric and what is happening on the ground, the contours of a crisis emerge that go beyond politics into the depth of Syrian society, reopening discussions about the country’s future stability under the current form of governance and political practice.

Observers and Syrian politicians believe that the transitional government now faces a test of sincerity: either it proves through its stance and actions that it is bound by any agreement and rhetoric it puts forward, or it appears to fall into duality and a disconnect between declarations and practices, proclaiming one thing while allowing the opposite on the ground.

A-H 

ANHA