What are the obstacles to democratizing Syria?

The practices of the transitional government in Syria have not reflected the aspirations of Syrians in the country, starting from the decrees and laws it issues and imposes following the fall of the Baath regime, to what it attempts to enforce through violence in some areas outside its control. This raises fears among Syrians of a system not different from its predecessor, even after more than 13 years since the revolution began.

The Transitional Authority Seeks to Cement a One-Party Rule

Malek Al-Hafez says, “The behavior of the current transitional authority reflects what can be described as managing the status quo through legislative power, where legal instruments and decrees become a means to entrench one-party rule rather than managing a transitional phase that is supposed to be temporary and open to pluralism. Instead of this phase serving as a bridge to rebuild the state on participatory foundations, the authority today acts as an absolute ruler, bypassing the spirit of any constitutional declaration, and even its explicit texts. This was clearly evident in the announcement of the establishment of the ‘Investment Fund,’ an entity granted broad powers without independent oversight or real accountability, placing all public assets under the control of the transitional presidency.”

“Using Legal Language to Impose a Narrow Vision of Governance”

Al-Hafez points out that the core problem goes beyond simply violating the constitutional declaration’s texts; it lies in removing the temporary nature of the transitional phase and treating it as a final ruling stage that allows the authority to engineer the political, economic, and administrative scene according to its own terms.

He explains, “This mode of exercising power represents a reproduction of the authoritarian state structure, albeit in different clothes. It uses legal language to impose a narrow vision of governance, institutionalizing the interests of specific elites and reproducing centralization and guardianship.”

What Are the Obstacles to Achieving Democracy in Syria?

Regarding the obstacles facing Syria’s democratization, Al-Hafez states, “Democratizing Syria does not only face difficulties resulting from the prolonged war and deep social divisions but also confronts deeper structural obstacles related to the nature of power and its ideological and political system. The problem starts with the absence of any serious vision to rebuild the state on a new social contract between the authority and society one based on citizenship, dignity, and justice, not dominance and guardianship. What exacerbates this deadlock is the authority’s continued production of its legitimacy outside society, relying on ready-made narratives about the necessity of stability.”

The State Should Not Be Understood as a Tool Managed with a Spoils Mentality

He adds, “In this context, oversight and balance institutions are absent, and with them, the true meaning of democracy as a culture of transparency and turnover disappears. The state should not be understood as a tool governed by a spoils mentality, where power is distributed as a reward to those who ‘liberated’ it, with no responsibility subjected to monitoring or accountability.”

Politicizing Identities Deepens the Social Rift and Turns Diversity into a Tool for Conflict

Al-Hafez notes that what worsens the situation is the continued politicization of identities and the sectarianization of the public sphere, where ethnic or sectarian affiliations are invoked not for justice or integration into the national contract, but for mobilization or containment within new authoritarian structures. This deepens the social rift and turns diversity into a tool for conflict.

Malek al-Hafez emphasizes that democracy in Syria cannot be reduced to a ready-made formula or a defined temporal stage. Rather, it is a project to redefine the relationship between the state and its citizens, both politically and morally. This project remains absent, or rather suppressed by the current authority, due to the logic of monopoly governing it, which may view democracy as a threat to its existence.

ANHA