In a comprehensive analysis, The Economist explores Syria’s shifting political landscape under President Ahmad al-Sharaa, tracing a path from initial optimism—sparked by lifted sanctions and economic recovery—to a resurgence of authoritarianism and sectarian violence. The report argues that the rise of a more organised opposition presents a defining challenge, and how Sharaa responds will determine whether Syria retreats into chaos or progresses towards a more inclusive political order.
The British magazine notes that for much of the first half of 2025, the outlook for al-Sharaa appeared positive. The newly installed president benefited from U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to lift sanctions, which spurred economic revival in Damascus and other major cities after more than a decade of conflict. Gulf and Turkish investors returned, and a poll conducted by The Economist found widespread public optimism following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Crucially, Sharaa—once a jihadist—did not implement a Taliban-style form of rule, defying early fears and fuelling hopes of a stable transition.
However, the magazine observes that this early enthusiasm has since faded, replaced by mounting frustration. Sharaa has failed to reconcile Syria’s deep sectarian divisions, and his growing authoritarian tendencies have further inflamed tensions. In response, civil society activists have begun to coalesce into a more unified opposition, demanding political reform. How the president engages with these demands, The Economist warns, will determine both his legacy and Syria’s future.
While Sharaa has demonstrated pragmatism, the report highlights a series of critical missteps. In March, militias affiliated with his forces killed around 1,000 people in Latakia, a coastal city and Alawite stronghold—Assad’s sect and a traditional base of regime support. Sharaa’s response was notably slow and insufficient. Four months later, violence erupted in the Druze-majority province of Suweida, where massacres—some reportedly carried out by pro-government forces—further undermined confidence in his leadership. These atrocities prompted Israeli military intervention, with airstrikes targeting Suweida and central Damascus, citing protection of the Druze minority.
The Economist argues that Sharaa’s authoritarian character is becoming increasingly evident. As governor of Idlib during Assad’s final years, he oversaw a relatively efficient local administration and a modestly thriving economy, but simultaneously grew more repressive—jailing dissenters and centralising power. This style has carried into his presidency, where decision-making is now concentrated among a tight-knit group of Sunni loyalists, marginalising minority voices. Supporters contend that in a country still emerging from war, broad representation is a luxury, and that centralised authority offers efficiency. Yet, the report notes, this consolidation has failed to deliver either security or effective governance.
In response, a loose but growing coalition of activists—many of them veterans of the anti-Assad movement—is now pushing for urgent reform. Chief among their demands is an overhaul of Sharaa’s hastily written constitutional declaration, to allow the formation of political parties and expand space for civil society. This marks the first coordinated political resistance to his rule.
While Sharaa has not imprisoned these critics, The Economist contends that mere tolerance is inadequate. The president must go further—actively including dissenting voices in governance. Syria requires an open constitutional process, a political settlement with the Kurds, a more inclusive security leadership, and an electoral law that prevents hardline Sunni dominance over parliamentary selection committees ahead of the planned September 2025 vote.
The analysis concludes by drawing parallels with the end of Sharaa’s rule in Idlib, when demonstrators began calling for his removal. While today’s opposition has not yet reached that stage, the report warns that with no credible alternative leader, a sudden vacuum would prove dangerous for a war-ravaged nation. However, within a functioning political system, opposition movements can provide stability rather than chaos. For a fractured and fragile Syria, embracing this dynamic offers the best hope of avoiding renewed conflict.
