In his long-awaited address to the Syrian people, President Ahmad al-Sharaa sought to present a vision for Syria’s future in the wake of the Assad regime’s collapse. His speech, measured and deliberate, touched on key themes of national unity, security, and reconstruction. Yet, despite its reassuring tone, it left many critical questions unanswered. What form of governance will Syria adopt? Will the transition be genuinely inclusive or merely consolidate power within a new ruling elite? How will the military be restructured, and what role will foreign powers play in shaping the country’s trajectory?
While Sharaa’s address was met with a mixture of cautious optimism and skepticism, reactions from analysts and political observers suggest that the speech—like Syria’s transition itself—is fraught with complexity. Some view it as a necessary step toward stability, while others fear it signals the emergence of yet another centralized authority under a different name.
This analysis weaves together insights from various commentators—Wael al-Sawah, Iyad Jaafari, Omar Kaddour, Mohammad al-Abdallah, and Abdul-Jabbar al-Akidi—who dissect the speech’s strengths, contradictions, and omissions. From concerns about political inclusivity and military integration to the absence of a clear democratic roadmap, their perspectives highlight the fine line Sharaa must walk between stabilizing a fractured nation and avoiding the pitfalls of autocratic rule.
As Syria stands at a crossroads, Sharaa’s leadership will be tested not by his rhetoric, but by his ability to transform broad promises into tangible reforms. Will his administration pave the way for a truly representative political system, or will it simply rearrange the power structures of the past? The coming months will provide the answers.
A Speech Long Overdue
Two weeks before the address, political writer Wael al-Sawah had called for exactly this: a direct, unfiltered message from the de facto ruler of Syria, one that would speak to Syrians—not to the West, not to the regional powers, and not to Islamists alone. In this regard, Sharaa delivered. However, his message was anything but comprehensive.
Al-Sawah, like many analysts, had expected the speech to clarify Syria’s path forward—particularly in regard to democracy, the rule of law, and equal citizenship. Instead, it left crucial questions unanswered. His language was measured, and his acknowledgment of all Syrians—men and women alike—was a significant departure from past authoritarian rhetoric. Yet, as al-Sawah points out, his avoidance of the word democracy in favor of shura was deliberate. This omission signals an ideological stance that relies on consultation rather than binding democratic mechanisms, potentially allowing a concentration of power under the guise of consensus.
The Dangers of a Dictatorship in Transition
Omar Kaddour offers a more philosophical perspective, framing Sharaa’s rule within the classical Roman concept of dictatorship—wherein a leader is granted extraordinary powers for a limited time to restore order. Syria today, he argues, requires a temporary strongman to prevent chaos. However, history warns us that such arrangements rarely remain temporary. Will Sharaa follow the model of Cincinnatus, who relinquished power after restoring stability, or will he drift toward Julius Caesar’s path, where authority becomes indefinite?
The fundamental issue lies in the sequencing of power. Mohammad al-Abdallah notes that, ideally, a national conference should have been convened first, followed by the formation of a legislative body, which would then oversee the selection of a transitional leader. Instead, the process was reversed: Sharaa assumed power first and now holds the reins over shaping the interim institutions. This reversal consolidates power around him, raising concerns about the long-term trajectory of his rule.
A Fragile Military Balance
One of the most pressing concerns raised by Sharaa’s speech is the future of Syria’s military structure. The dissolution of Assad’s army and security apparatus has left a vacuum filled by a patchwork of armed factions with competing interests.
Iyad Jaafari highlights the difficulty of creating a unified Syrian army, particularly as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) insist on maintaining their own bloc, while factions in the south and east remain hesitant to merge. The longer this issue remains unresolved, the greater the risk of factionalism and internal conflict—similar to Libya’s post-revolutionary fragmentation.
Meanwhile, the role of foreign actors looms large. The Free Syria Army (FSA) has framed ISIS as an existential threat, possibly as a means of justifying continued American support, while Turkey is positioning itself as a security guarantor. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has called for a joint Turkish-Iraqi offensive against ISIS and the PKK, an offer that President Erdogan is likely to push in discussions with Washington. The key question remains: will the U.S. entrust Turkey with counterterrorism efforts in Syria, or will it maintain its partnership with Kurdish forces, despite Turkish objections?
The National Dialogue Conference: A Genuine Process or a Controlled Forum?
Al-Sawah takes particular issue with Sharaa’s framing of the National Dialogue Conference. While the president described it as a platform for discussion, al-Sawah argues that its actual purpose is far more consequential: it is meant to lay the constitutional and political foundations for Syria’s future. Yet, Sharaa’s description suggests a more controlled process—one where input is welcomed but ultimate decision-making remains concentrated in his hands.
Jaafari and other analysts echo these concerns. The absence of a clear timeline for elections and constitutional reforms suggests that the conference may be more of a consultative mechanism rather than a decision-making body. Furthermore, the lack of clarity on who will participate raises suspicions about whether this will be an inclusive process or merely a validation of preordained decisions.
The Exclusionary Victory Narrative
While Sharaa acknowledged the role of many actors in the revolution, his Victory Conference was limited to a select group of factions. This, al-Sawah argues, is a troubling sign. By structuring Syria’s future around the factions that physically seized Damascus—rather than engaging the full spectrum of Syrian society—Sharaa risks repeating the exclusionary tendencies that fueled past conflicts.
Moreover, the absence of secular and democratic forces from meaningful positions of power highlights a deeper structural issue. As al-Sawah laments, Syria’s democratic opposition remains a “vocal phenomenon” rather than an organized political force. Without a credible opposition to challenge him, Sharaa has little incentive to broaden his political base.
The International Dimension: Seeking Legitimacy
Al-Abdallah notes that Qatar played a key role in pressuring Sharaa to formalize the transition, emphasizing that the Emir of Qatar would only engage with an official head of state. This external pressure may help institutionalize the new government, but the broader question remains: will the international community recognize Sharaa’s rule, or will sanctions and diplomatic isolation continue?
Recognition hinges on legitimacy. The more the new government appears to be an extension of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the less likely it is to gain Western or UN recognition. If Sharaa’s administration fails to distance itself from Islamist hardliners, Syria risks remaining in a geopolitical limbo—without the foreign aid and investment needed for reconstruction.
What Lies Ahead?
Despite these concerns, the speech was not without merit. Al-Sawah, Kaddour, and al-Akidi all acknowledge that Sharaa’s rhetoric was more measured than expected. His emphasis on national unity, transitional justice, and economic recovery resonates with a population desperate for stability. However, these aspirations must be matched with concrete action.
To move forward, three key steps are essential:
- Define a clear timeline for elections and governance reforms. Syrians need guarantees that the transitional period will not become an indefinite one-man rule.
- Ensure genuine political inclusivity. The formation of a temporary legislative body must include secularists, minorities, and opposition figures—not just victorious factions.
- Clarify the military’s future. Will Syria establish a unified army under state control, or will it remain a fragmented patchwork of militias? A clear security doctrine is essential for long-term stability.
The Fine Line Between Stabilization and Autocracy
Al-Sharaa’s speech has set the stage for Syria’s next steps, but the details remain ambiguous. His leadership will be judged not by rhetoric, but by his willingness to share power, institutionalize governance, and protect fundamental freedoms.
As Kaddour warns, the difference between a temporary stabilizing dictatorship and a long-term authoritarian regime is a matter of choice. If Sharaa does not set a definitive path toward a pluralistic political system, his rule may simply be a continuation of Syria’s long history of centralized autocracy—albeit under a new name.
The coming months will determine whether this is truly a new chapter for Syria, or merely a new face at the helm of an old system.
Conclusion: A Precarious Crossroads for Syria
Ahmad al-Sharaa’s speech was an attempt to assert leadership over a fractured and uncertain political landscape. While he struck a tone of measured authority—acknowledging the sacrifices of all Syrians, promising a transition toward stability, and hinting at a future political process—his address left fundamental concerns unresolved. The absence of a clear commitment to democracy, the opaque nature of the proposed National Dialogue Conference, and the exclusionary underpinnings of the Victory Conference suggest that Syria’s new leadership risks repeating the mistakes of the past.
The path ahead remains fragile. On one hand, Sharaa enjoys considerable legitimacy as the figurehead of the revolution that toppled Assad, and his pragmatism in dealing with regional actors may open doors for diplomatic recognition. On the other hand, his concentration of power, reliance on Islamist-leaning factions, and ambiguous stance on governance reforms cast a shadow over his ability to lead a truly inclusive transition.
As Wael al-Sawah warns, Syria’s secular and democratic forces remain politically fragmented, struggling to mount a credible challenge to the new status quo. If they fail to organize, they may find themselves sidelined, leaving Syria’s future to be decided by the same militarized power structures that have shaped its past. Meanwhile, foreign actors—including Turkey, the U.S., and Arab states—will play a decisive role in shaping the new order, with conflicting interests that could either stabilize or further divide the country.
For now, the success of this transition will hinge on three key factors: Sharaa’s willingness to share power, the establishment of a clear electoral roadmap, and the creation of a unified military under state control. If these conditions are met, Syria may have a chance at genuine reconstruction and reconciliation. If not, the country risks slipping into another cycle of authoritarianism—this time under a different name.
Sharaa’s speech may have marked the beginning of Syria’s next chapter, but whether it will be a story of renewal or repetition remains to be seen. The coming months will determine whether Syria can finally break free from its legacy of centralized rule—or whether history is doomed to repeat itself.
