The View From Damascus – The Syrian National Dialogue Conference and the Perils of Hastened Reconciliation

The Preparatory Committee for the Syrian National Dialogue Conference announced that official invitations had been sent out on February 23, 2025, to participants from both inside and outside Syria. The conference, set to take place on February 24 and 25 in Damascus, aims to lay the groundwork for political and institutional reforms in Syria’s transitional period.

At a press conference attended by Enab Baladi, Hassan al-Dughaim, the spokesperson for the Preparatory Committee, emphasized that the conference’s recommendations would not be mere formalities but rather the foundation for a constitutional declaration, an economic framework, and the restructuring of state institutions.

According to the committee, over 30 preparatory meetings were held across Syrian provinces, involving approximately 4,000 participants. The committee collected 2,200 verbal interventions and 700 written contributions, reflecting a range of political and social viewpoints.

Al-Dughaim clarified that the formation of a transitional government is not directly tied to the National Dialogue, although he acknowledged that a government formed after the conference could benefit from its recommendations. The transitional president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, had previously issued a decree on February 12 establishing the Preparatory Committee, composed of independent figures tasked with ensuring a meaningful dialogue process.

Conference Structure and Key Discussions

According to leaked details, the conference agenda is divided into two main parts:

• February 24, 2025: A reception and introductory meeting at Dama Rose Hotel in Damascus.
• February 25, 2025: The main conference, where discussions will focus on six major topics: 
  1. Transitional justice
  2. Constitution-building and governance
  3. Personal freedoms and human rights
  4. Economic principles
  5. Role of civil society organizations
  6. Humanitarian concerns

The conference is expected to host 600 attendees, including representatives from different regions, civil society actors, and political figures. However, the selection criteria for participants and the decision-making power of the conference remain unclear, raising concerns about its legitimacy and inclusivity.

A Structured Transition or a Political Stalemate?

The Syrian political transition faces a dilemma: should it prioritize immediate democratic reforms or focus on rebuilding state institutions first? This debate mirrors global post-conflict transitions, with contrasting models such as South Africa’s successful consultative process and Iraq’s failed rushed democratization.

According to Amr Najjar, an expert on political transitions, the rush to early elections and power-sharing quotas in unstable environments often leads to sectarian fragmentation and political paralysis, as seen in Iraq and Lebanon. Conversely, delaying political liberalization under the pretext of institutional stability may enable authoritarian entrenchment, as seen in Egypt’s prolonged military rule post-2011.

Najjar argues for a gradualist approach that balances state-building with political inclusivity. Instead of launching full-fledged elections, a structured consultation process should incrementally expand political participation. This model would ensure that governance structures are strong enough to handle democratic competition, preventing chaos and further conflict.

Challenges in the Consultation Process

While consultative mechanisms can foster national consensus, they are often manipulated by political elites to consolidate their influence rather than facilitate genuine dialogue. In many transitional states, ruling factions control participation criteria, ensuring decision-making remains within their circles.

One of the major risks is “tokenism,” where civil society groups and opposition voices are symbolically included but lack real influence over decisions. The South African model of inclusive dialogue, which actively involved civil society in drafting the post-apartheid constitution, contrasts sharply with Iraq’s post-2003 transition, where exclusionary policies fueled sectarian violence and instability.

For Syria, ensuring transparency in consultation is crucial. Political decisions should not be confined to closed-door elite negotiations but should engage wider public participation through media access, expert-led advisory committees, and decentralized governance mechanisms.

Is the National Dialogue Conference a Genuine Effort?

Critics argue that the Syrian National Dialogue Conference may be little more than a legitimization tool for the new political authority rather than a real effort to shape the country’s future. Bassam Yousef, a Syrian commentator, dismisses the event as a theatrical exercise, comparing it to past Baathist-controlled dialogues designed to reinforce state authority rather than foster change.

He points to the contradictions in the government’s approach:

• Decisions from the military victory conference were declared binding, while the National Dialogue’s outcomes are merely advisory.
• The conference lacks a clear roadmap for enforcing its recommendations, leaving the government in full control of their implementation.

According to Yousef, true political dialogue requires clear objectives, meaningful representation, and enforceable agreements. Otherwise, it risks becoming a rubber-stamp exercise designed to placate international actors while consolidating power domestically.

Lessons from Global Transitions

To avoid past mistakes, Syria’s transition must incorporate elements of successful post-conflict recoveries:

• South Africa (1990s): A well-organized consultative process ensured that political reform was gradual and inclusive.
• Kosovo (1999): Advisory groups of experts and technocrats played a key role in shaping policy decisions.
• Burundi (2000s): The transition was supported by civil society programs, preventing a return to authoritarian rule.

Conversely, the failures in Iraq and Libya highlight the dangers of rushed elections and weak institutions. Both transitions lacked a cohesive national framework, leading to sectarian violence and governance failures.

The Road Ahead for Syria

For the National Dialogue Conference to succeed, it must:

1. Define clear objectives—Will it shape Syria’s future governance, or is it merely a discussion platform?
2. Ensure enforceability—Recommendations must translate into policy, with mechanisms to prevent state manipulation.
3. Guarantee transparency—Media access, published reports, and open consultations are essential.
4. Balance elite participation with civil society—Decision-making should not be monopolized by armed factions or old political elites.
5. Create structured consultative mechanisms—Task forces, expert committees, and grassroots forums should feed into policy-making.

Without these safeguards, the National Dialogue risks becoming another failed Middle Eastern transition, repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Libya rather than learning from South Africa’s successful model.

The challenge for Syria’s transition is not just holding a conference but ensuring that its outcomes are meaningful, inclusive, and enforceable. If the National Dialogue is merely a political manoeuvre, it will fail to address the deeper issues of governance, justice, and stability—leaving Syria trapped in an endless cycle of conflict and authoritarianism.

The National Dialogue Conference presents a pivotal moment for Syria, but its success depends on how genuinely inclusive and effective it is. While some see it as a crucial step toward stability, others warn it may be a superficial process that rubber-stamps pre-existing power structures.

The coming days will reveal whether this conference is a serious attempt at national reconciliation or simply another chapter in Syria’s long history of controlled political theatrics.