The recent discussions surrounding Syria’s National Dialogue Conference expose a fundamental crisis in the country’s political transition: the absence of a truly inclusive, transparent, and democratic process. Despite its branding as a step toward national reconciliation and rebuilding, the conference has instead deepened existing rifts, raised doubts about the legitimacy of the new political authority, and demonstrated the persistent influence of military and external forces over Syria’s political future. Across multiple perspectives—from Mohammad al-Abdallah’s critique on Facebook to the Syrian Democratic Coalition’s statement and Omar Kaddour’s analysis—the same core issue emerges: the National Dialogue Conference was a missed opportunity to create a genuine, representative political framework, and instead, it served to entrench pre-existing power dynamics under new justifications.
- A Dialogue Devoid of Substance
In his Facebook post, Mohammad al-Abdallah presents a scathing critique of the conference, arguing that it was engineered to fail from the outset. He describes how the dialogue was deliberately “dwarfed,” drained of any real political weight, and ultimately turned into a symbolic gathering rather than a functional political process.
The National Dialogue Conference Outcomes as a Basis for Syria’s Interim Constitutional Declaration
His central argument is that the conference was structured in a way that excluded political representation and instead invited individuals in their personal capacities. This strategic decision, he argues, prevented organized political forces from having a say in shaping Syria’s post-Assad future. By reducing participation to isolated individuals, the organizers effectively neutralized any meaningful debate on core national issues—such as the nature of governance, the structure of the state, and the mechanisms of political participation.
Moreover, Abdallah points to the fact that dialogue among Syria’s various factions remains indirect and largely mediated by external actors. Whether it is the talks between Al-Sharaa and Mazloum Abdi being brokered by the West or the Kurdish-Druze exchanges happening only via media statements, there is no real effort at internal reconciliation. This, he argues, is a dangerous precedent that only serves to solidify divisions rather than heal them.
The broader implication of his critique is clear: without a national dialogue that is genuinely open, representative, and inclusive, Syria risks descending into further fragmentation and instability. The failure to address critical questions—such as the balance between presidential and parliamentary governance, federalism vs. centralization, and political representation—will only exacerbate tensions and leave Syria vulnerable to both internal conflict and external manipulation.
- A Rigged Process with Flawed Outcomes
The Syrian Democratic Coalition, in its official statement, reinforces and expands upon Abdallah’s criticisms, particularly emphasizing the structural flaws in the conference’s organization and execution.
The Coalition acknowledges that bringing together Syrians from different backgrounds was symbolically important, especially holding the conference in the People’s Palace, a place long off-limits to the Syrian people under the Assad regime. However, they argue that this symbolic victory was overshadowed by the conference’s lack of inclusiveness and transparency.
Key concerns raised in their statement include:
- The opaque selection process for participants, which did not follow clear democratic principles.
- The absence of a genuine commitment to democratic reforms, with the final communiqué failing to mention separation of powers, a modern party law, or mechanisms to ensure political pluralism.
- The risk of power monopolization, as President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s remarks about “accepting the methods of victory” hinted at an attempt to justify the dominance of those currently in power rather than fostering a truly participatory system.
Perhaps the most damning critique in the Coalition’s statement is its warning that the conference risks legitimizing military balances of power rather than setting the foundation for democracy. Instead of acting as the beginning of a real political transition, the event could simply serve as a means to rubber-stamp the authority of those who currently hold power. Without concrete implementation mechanisms, a timeline for reforms, or a legal framework for political participation, the National Dialogue risks being just another superficial gesture—one that ultimately does more harm than good.
- Justice as a Tool of Political Control
Omar Kaddour, writing in Al-Modon, approaches the issue from a different but related angle: the manipulation of transitional justice to serve political interests. He dissects President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s statement about “accepting the methods of victory” and argues that this rhetoric is designed to preemptively justify selective justice.
Kaddour highlights how the new authorities are selectively pursuing accountability—prosecuting some of Assad’s criminals while tolerating others who have joined the new power structure. This, he warns, is not a framework for genuine justice but rather a political maneuver to consolidate control.
The issue of justice is particularly thorny in Syria, where nearly every faction involved in the conflict has committed human rights violations. From the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and former opposition groups, different actors have engaged in abuses. Yet, instead of fostering a comprehensive transitional justice process that includes all perpetrators, the new authorities appear to be engaging in a highly selective approach—targeting some criminals while shielding others.
Kaddour also warns that the absence of a clear national reconciliation framework could backfire. Without an agreed-upon definition of what justice means, who should be held accountable, and what reconciliation looks like, Syria could remain trapped in a cycle of vengeance and instability. His analysis suggests that transitional justice is being used not as a means of healing the nation, but as a political weapon to control narratives and consolidate power.
- Ayman Asfari: The Power Struggles Behind the Scenes
While Abdallah, the Syrian Democratic Coalition, and Kaddour focus on the failures of the National Dialogue, Ayman Asfari’s statement indirectly confirms their concerns by exposing the political maneuvering behind the transition process.
Asfari, chairman of Madaniya, denied rumors that he had been tasked with forming Syria’s new government, emphasizing that he has no such aspirations. However, his remarks about supporting a technocratic transitional government, free from sectarian and military quotas, suggest that there is a struggle over what form Syria’s next government will take.
His statement aligns with the broader criticisms of the conference: namely, that the process of forming Syria’s new government is happening behind closed doors, rather than through transparent, democratic means. While he does not directly criticize the conference, his emphasis on fair representation, efficiency, and inclusiveness highlights the very deficiencies that the conference failed to address.
Conclusion: A Nation at a Crossroads, but Without a Compass
Across all these perspectives, a single theme emerges: Syria’s National Dialogue Conference was a lost opportunity that has failed to lay the groundwork for a stable, democratic future.
Rather than being a moment of unity and reconciliation, the conference exposed deep divisions, reinforced concerns about exclusionary governance, and revealed the dangers of selective justice. Instead of being the foundation for a truly new political system, it risks becoming a superficial exercise in legitimizing the current power structure.
The key challenges ahead for Syria remain unresolved:
- What system of governance will be adopted? Will Syria continue with a presidential system that centralizes power, or will it transition to a more inclusive parliamentary model?
- Will decentralization be seriously considered? Or will federalism continue to be dismissed as a separatist threat?
- How will justice be handled? Will all perpetrators be held accountable, or will justice be selectively applied for political convenience?
- What role will external actors play? Can Syria forge an independent path, or will regional and international powers continue to shape its fate?
Without a transparent and truly inclusive national dialogue, Syria risks remaining trapped in a cycle of division, external interference, and authoritarianism under a new guise. The country stands at a crossroads, but the path forward remains dangerously unclear.
