With full appreciation for the efforts made by the preparatory committee of the National Dialogue Conference, it remains our duty to create space for responsible and constructive criticism. It is essential to question and, when necessary, object to the mechanisms in place—whether regarding the committee’s formation, the lack of clarity surrounding its operational framework and internal regulations, or the presence of a technical team composed of geographically distributed subcommittees that could enhance its work. Furthermore, there is a pressing need for better communication and engagement with Syrians inside the country, as well as for a clear agenda guiding these dialogues.
A significant geographical area has been excluded on the pretext that it is under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and therefore outside the authority of the current government. This exclusion fundamentally undermines the essence of a “national dialogue” in its true, inclusive sense. A deeper discussion is needed on how to facilitate this dialogue without excluding any party, ensuring outreach even to those who lack formal representation in the process. Furthermore, there is no real representation of political entities, trade unions, or civil society organizations, nor of other organized societal expressions. This raises serious concerns about whether the dialogue can genuinely foster pluralism and avoid forming a monopolistic system that contradicts the principles of inclusivity—except, of course, for those whose hands are stained with blood from all sides.
This dialogue must be a Syrian-led initiative aimed at genuine inclusion rather than merely fulfilling international conditions as a preliminary step toward lifting economic sanctions. The demand for lifting sanctions should be a Syrian priority in its own right—one that we should all work toward, given that these sanctions are among the gravest consequences left by the Assad regime’s crimes.
The Syrian National Dialogue Conference: A Critical Political Analysis
Thus far, discussions have resulted in key points for drafting a constitutional declaration. However, this process requires legitimacy drawn from the dialogue conference itself. It is concerning that the conference appears to be issuing recommendations rather than binding decisions, which contradicts the very concept of a “conference” as a sovereign decision-making body. Moreover, these recommendations are not obligatory; they are to be submitted to the head of the legitimate authority, who was granted full powers by the so-called “Victory Conference.” He, in turn, will task a designated committee or legislative body with drafting the constitutional declaration that will govern the transitional phase.
This understanding was pieced together through extensive research into press statements, discussions, and Telegram updates—a challenging process due to the absence of a clear media source and the contradictory statements from officials regarding centralization and decentralization. This lack of coherence has created a state of confusion that remains unresolved.
Invitations to the conference were sent out hastily, and while some of us received them, logistical obstacles prevented our attendance. Although I had already booked a flight, I was forced to cancel due to the delayed arrival of the official invitation and uncertainty surrounding the schedule. By the time I received formal confirmation this morning, time constraints made participation impossible. Unfortunately, this situation echoes past international conferences, where Syrians inside the country were excluded due to visa restrictions and other formalities. Now, history repeats itself in a different form—those outside Syria find themselves unable to participate due to their inability to return and resettle in the country, whether for political asylum reasons or personal and professional circumstances requiring legal and financial preparations. While some of us could return despite obstacles, others simply cannot.
I had hoped to share the voices and aspirations of Syrians from inside the country, contributing my modest expertise to the issues I have dedicated immense effort to—issues that have drained my time, energy, and even impacted my family. This commitment extends both to the formal negotiation tracks I was previously engaged in and to informal processes aimed at shaping a meaningful future for Syria.
Today, more than ever, we need a sound framework to ensure that the dialogue’s outcomes hold practical value and can serve as a foundation for the future. We need a secure and stable country where those who have endured the harshest conditions—whether inside Syria or in displacement camps—play a central role in shaping the next phase. At the same time, those who were forced to leave the country must also have the opportunity to contribute, each from their respective positions.
From the bottom of my heart, I hope that this national dialogue process succeeds in reaching every corner of Syria, ultimately fostering a shared Syrian identity. Such an identity should not be treated as a fixed, predetermined concept but rather as a dynamic and evolving construct, shaped through inclusive and participatory efforts—starting with this very initiative.
Alice Mufarrej is a Syrian activist and feminist, member of the Syrian Women’s Political Movement
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
