Like dozens of other Syrians, I received an invitation to attend the National Dialogue Conference in Damascus. However, due to time constraints, I was unable to accept it, as the invitation—like many others—arrived rather late. Nonetheless, I find no issue in sharing a few thoughts, offering some suggestions, and raising questions that might contribute to the purpose and objectives of the ongoing dialogue.
It is almost redundant to state that dialogue is inherently beneficial, yet it is not an end in itself. If treated as such, it risks becoming empty rhetoric with no real value. For dialogue to be meaningful—particularly in the Syrian context, where the need for purposeful discussions is urgent—it must have clear objectives. The absence of such dialogue in the past has come at a heavy cost. Under the former regime, the political deadlock first drove Syrians to the streets and later, after the regime met their demands with deadly force, into armed resistance. Given this history, defining the goals of this dialogue is imperative. One of its primary objectives, arguably, should be reaching a consensus on the structure of the new state that Syrians aspire to establish after dismantling the system of corruption and tyranny. This entails, in particular, an agreement on the country’s political, economic, and social frameworks, which should later be formalized in a constitutional text drafted by a panel of legal experts and submitted to a public referendum for approval.
The View from Damascus – The Syrian National Dialogue Conference: A Critical Political Analysis
The themes outlined for discussion at the conference touch upon some of these fundamental issues, albeit without explicitly stating them. If the participants can develop a shared vision of the Syrian state’s future structure, it would mark a significant step in the right direction. In that case, the debate over whether to call this gathering a “National Conference” or a “National Dialogue Conference” would become irrelevant.
Another critical issue that should feature prominently in the discussions—although it is absent from the agenda—is the transitional period. Given the constitutional vacuum that has existed since the fall of the former regime, it is imperative to establish a clear roadmap for this phase, something that remains undefined to date.
There are various critiques of the conference regarding its structure, organization, authority, objectives, and expected outcomes—concerns that are natural for any initiative of this magnitude, particularly when expectations are high. However, the conference should not begin its discussions from scratch. The claim that Syrians have not engaged in dialogue for seventy years is an exaggeration. Over the past decade, numerous conferences, symposiums, and discussions have taken place both inside and outside Syria, in spaces beyond the regime’s control. On multiple occasions, Syrians have reached common ground on key issues that could serve as a foundation for further discussions.
The issue of representation will continue to be a major concern for any political gathering aimed at shaping Syria’s future. Without the necessary mechanisms and tools, resolving this issue will not be easy. Syria is currently unprepared for any form of elections—not only because they could deepen existing political and social divides but also because they are logistically unfeasible. Millions of Syrians remain displaced from their homes, and many lack official identification documents. However, this does not mean that solutions are impossible. The key lies in establishing clear, objective, and widely accepted criteria to ensure the most inclusive representation possible. This requires avoiding vague standards, such as “patriotism,” which some reject due to its lack of a clear definition or a universally accepted framework for distinguishing between “patriots” and others.
For the conference to succeed, it would be a grave mistake to exclude any individual, group, or faction—except those directly implicated in Syrian bloodshed. Political or ideological differences should not be grounds for exclusion, as doing so would undermine the conference’s legitimacy and reduce it to a one-sided dialogue, rendering it ineffective. In this regard, the organizers were wise, in my view, to temper expectations, hinting that this conference may serve as a prelude to future discussions. The questions at stake are numerous and complex, and they are only likely to multiply and deepen after the conference concludes.
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.
