The political and social landscape in Syria remains fraught with complexities, even as international and regional actors push for a transitional phase following the Assad regime’s collapse. The recent statements by UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen regarding the formation of a transitional governing body within three months reflect a renewed international commitment to Syria’s future. However, deeper structural and societal issues pose significant challenges to achieving a stable and inclusive transition.
Optimism Amidst Challenges: The International Perspective
The Riyadh meeting brought together Arab and international stakeholders, emphasizing solidarity with the Syrian people and calling for a comprehensive political transition. Pedersen highlighted the need for a National Dialogue Conference and a roadmap that includes Syria’s diverse components. His assurances of international support for a technocratic approach provide a glimmer of hope for a structured transition. Yet, as regional analysts like Hussam Taleb suggest, the anticipated transitional governing body may face difficulties in avoiding sectarian quotas while ensuring effective representation.
The optimism from the Riyadh conference underscores the necessity of Arab and international cooperation in this critical phase. However, as highlighted by observers like Nizar Abu Fakhr, the absence of clear mechanisms for selecting qualified candidates could undermine these efforts, making the task of forming a transitional governing body within three months an ambitious, if not unrealistic, goal.
Structural Impediments: The Legacy of Assad and Absence of Institutions
Beyond the logistical challenges, the deeper scars of Assad’s regime—distrust, societal fragmentation, and the erosion of public institutions—present significant hurdles. As Ammar Mamoun writes, the regime instilled a culture of denial and skepticism that continues to influence Syrian society. Public spaces, once dominated by fear and suppression, have been reclaimed, yet they remain vulnerable to exploitation by new authorities seeking to consolidate power under the guise of “accommodation” or “reconciliation.”
Madaniya Representatives Meet with Ahmed Sharaa, Head of the Syrian Interim Administration
The absence of a constitution and transparent legal frameworks exacerbates these challenges. The current leadership’s reliance on performative justice—public executions, parades of shame, and ad hoc measures—undermines trust and perpetuates cycles of fear and retribution. Such practices raise concerns about whether the transitional phase can genuinely address the need for accountability and justice.
Individual Initiatives and the Danger of Fragmentation
The post-Assad era has seen a surge in individual and community initiatives aimed at filling the vacuum left by state institutions. While some efforts, like regional service provision and cultural projects, reflect grassroots resilience, they also risk fragmenting authority and diluting accountability. The co-option of such initiatives by groups like HTS (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham) underscores the danger of decentralization without oversight, where civilian-led projects become tools for advancing sectarian or ideological agendas.
As Mamoun notes, these initiatives, often framed as acts of goodwill, expose the leadership’s retreat from its responsibilities. The resulting chaos—evident in incidents like the stampede at Chef Abu Omar al-Damascene’s public feast—highlights the precariousness of relying on uncoordinated actions in the absence of institutional governance.
The Path Forward: Balancing Realism and Reform
The ambitious goal of forming a transitional governing body within three months must contend with the realities of post-Assad Syria. Analysts like Hassan al-Nifi argue that the timeline for a meaningful transition, including drafting a constitution and organizing elections, could extend beyond Pedersen’s projections. Effective governance requires not only technocratic expertise but also mechanisms for fostering inclusivity and rebuilding trust.
Moreover, revisiting UN Resolution 2254 in light of Syria’s current realities is imperative. The resolution’s emphasis on forming a governing body with full executive powers, transitional justice, and democratic elections remains a cornerstone for international efforts. However, as Taleb and Abu Fakhr suggest, its framework must adapt to the new sociopolitical dynamics, moving beyond the regime-opposition dichotomy toward a pluralistic and democratic system.
Conclusion: A Fragile Opportunity
Syria stands at a crossroads, with the promise of international support tempered by the weight of its internal challenges. The transitional phase offers an opportunity to reshape the country’s political landscape, but success will depend on the ability to navigate societal mistrust, institutional weaknesses, and competing regional agendas.
The path forward must prioritize transparency, inclusivity, and accountability, ensuring that the transitional government serves as a genuine bridge to a democratic future. As stakeholders proceed cautiously, balancing optimism with pragmatism will be essential to overcoming the formidable obstacles that lie ahead.
