Photo by Ahmed Akacha on Pexels
For over a decade, Syria saw itself in the worst humanitarian crises and civil wars to exist: extensive, polarized, and bloody, increasing uncertainty about the country’s future. Now, even though the civil war itself has ceased, the political instability that ignited the fire is still waiting to burst.
Following Bashar al Assad’s dictatorial rule in Syria for three decades, stemming from the overthrow of the Ba’ath Party through a military coup, rebel groups like the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) conducted a series of uprisings in the midst of the Arab Springs movement for democracy. What started as political resistance resulted in a civil war when Assad’s regime resorted to violence when cracking down on protests, further escalating political tensions and exacerbating existing fractions in Syria.
14 years later, the war finally halted, but at a tremendous cost. Pressure from rebel groups toppled the Assad regime in December of 2024, allowing for the Syrian government to take charge by replacing the prime minister with President Al-Sharaa as president and creating a transitional government to facilitate future decisions as Syria deciphers their future paths.
Considering that in the last decade, there has not been a single “fair or free” election in Syria and that political instability from war has cost the lives of 620,000 individuals, it becomes imperative to ask: will Syria’s transitional government be able to ensure it holds fair elections?
Considering that in the last decade, there has not been a single “fair or free” election in Syria and that political instability from war has cost the lives of 620,000 individuals, centralized executive power will prevent democratic elections from prevailing in Syria, manifesting through two major avenues mostly attributable to the centralized executive power.
1: Indirect Election Processes
Subsequent to the fall of the Assad regime, the UN Refugee Agency quantifies that displacement has significantly hit Syria: 4.5 million abroad and seven million internally, creating one of the gravest humanitarian crises in the world. To make matters worse, displacement directly impacts the election process. Concerned about voter turnout with mass displacement, the Syrian government has designated voting power to the People’s Assembly and the governmental executives. Reuters contextualizes how President Al-Sharaa appoints one-third of the members while the remaining members to fill 210 spots on the assembly are elected by the local electoral colleges.
The apparent issue is power distribution. Suffrage is no longer a right for Syrian citizens; they are fighting for their lives. Syria’s voting system itself has evolved and adapted towards diminishing citizens’ voices, specifically because of mass displacement. What we have now is voting by a coin toss: it all depends on who is in office. Understanding past precedence for Syria makes it clear that chances of future recourse protecting democracy are slim to none, putting fair elections at the bottom of Syrian political agendas.
2: Political Silencing
Even if this change to the election process gets overturned in the future, political silencing adds another layer of complexity to the problem of democratic elections in Syria. Syria’s past and current government have created and reinforced a society where political voices are suppressed. Analysis from the Supreme Elections Committee shows that three provinces, Suweida, Hassakeh, and Raqqa, suspended planned election sites and opportunities, specifically using “security challenges” as justification. However, the underlying motivation of the government delves deeper.
All three provinces politically challenge the Syrian government’s rule. Specifically, Suweida is mainly resided by the Druze minority group in Syria. With recent efforts by the Druze to restore autonomy, they have directly inflicted violence against Syrian backed groups. In fact, reports from the Middle East Forum explain how clashes in South Syria between the Druze and Syria’s Bedouin Tribes cost 1,400 Druze lives and the displacement of 100 thousand. The provinces of Hassakeh and Raqqa pose similar threats to the Syrian government with their continuous advocacy for democracy and the eradication of centralized power existing in the status quo. When Syria’s government needs stability, they are met with chaos, ultimately incentivizing the government to suppress the voices of citizens and essential provinces.
The silencing of opposing political views is inherent in Syria’s history. After the dissolution of the Ba’ath party due to collapse, the 2011 Political Parties law explicitly outlines the prohibition of establishing new political parties in Syria to reduce potential opposition. The apparent impacts are twofold on the election process: first, Syria’s past and current prevention of political opposition leads to heightened political polarization due to restricted campaigns, and second, centralized authority allows for power abuse with a lack of transparency. However, in a world where Syrian elections could exist, citizens could finally experience a country of hope, democracy, and amplify their voices.
Although the war has ended, Syria still has a long way to go until peace is achieved. The international community must not ignore Syria at this critical hour, but rather, support and empower their future actions to promote global democratic practices.
Be First to Comment