Foreign Policy has published a penetrating report delineating the contours of Syria’s nascent political era in the wake of the Assad regime’s collapse, casting a discerning light upon the inaugural parliamentary elections convened under President Ahmed Sharaa, and the fervent controversy engendered by questions of their transparency and the circumscribed prerogatives of the emergent legislature. In its measured scrutiny of the landscape, the journal probes whether this electoral exercise heralds an authentic democratic metamorphosis or constitutes naught but a perfunctory gesture within a polity yet ensnared in seclusion and constraint.
According to the report, Syria has held its first parliamentary elections since the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the rise of transitional president Ahmed Sharaa, but the vote has fueled debate over whether the country is taking its first steps toward democracy or merely repackaging old authoritarian practices.
Among the contenders was Adhem Masoud al-Qaq, a Druze academic who was imprisoned three times in the 1980s under Hafez al-Assad for advocating democratic reform and later spent 36 years in exile. After returning home in 2024, al-Qaq ran to represent the Damascus suburb of Jaramana—but, like many hopefuls, ultimately lost.
A Vote Pre-Decided
Turnout was extremely low, the report says. Fewer than 6,000 local representatives—chosen through a multi-tiered electoral college—were responsible for filling 119 of the 210 seats. Elections in several districts were postponed indefinitely due to security concerns. Sharaa was expected to appoint 70 additional members by the end of October, but has yet to do so, amid a flurry of high-profile diplomatic visits to Moscow, Riyadh, and Washington.
Candidates and observers told Foreign Policy that outcomes were largely known in advance. “It was perfectly clear who would win long before voting began,” al-Qaq said. Electoral subcommittees, appointed through a hierarchy that ultimately reports to the president, held decisive control over who could actually stand.
Officials insisted the system was necessary given the displacement of millions of Syrians and the collapse of state institutions. Critics described it as an opaque, closed process vulnerable to political manipulation and corruption.
Restricted Powers, Limited Pluralism
The elections took place under a constitutional declaration issued by Sharaa in March, launching a five-year transitional period. While the new assembly can debate and pass legislation, it may only vote on bills proposed by the executive and cannot withdraw confidence from the president. Presidential elections are not expected for four or five years.
Radwan Ziadeh of the Arab Center in Washington argued the process “cannot truly be called elections,” describing it instead as an attempt to constitute a legislative authority under tightly controlled conditions.
Women won just six of the 119 decided seats. Minorities—including Kurds, Christians, and Alawites—secured ten. The overwhelming majority of seats went to Sunni men from administrative and commercial elites.
Old Regime Networks Persist
Several candidates reported intimidation and criminal activity linked to remnants of the Assad-era security apparatus. Muayad Zeidan, a law professor, was kidnapped and robbed days before the vote after responding to a car advertisement online. He suggested his abductors were part of the old regime’s networks, which he said remain deeply embedded in society.
Press Restrictions and Emerging Civic Energy
Despite the constraints, campaign gatherings in Homs, Douma, and Damascus saw animated debate on reconstruction and economic revival. Many candidates, including those who lost, expressed genuine enthusiasm for participating in political life for the first time in decades.
Yet press restrictions underscored the limits of reform. In Homs, journalists were barred from interviewing candidates despite holding government-issued credentials.
A Managed Opening—or a Missed Opportunity?
For al-Qaq, Zeidan, and others, participation itself was a symbolic milestone—proof that Syrians are eager to reclaim a political voice. But with tightly controlled candidate selection, limited parliamentary authority, and the president retaining sweeping powers, analysts say Syria’s new assembly remains far from a representative democratic institution.
Whether the transitional government expands these tentative openings—or repeats the centralized patterns of the past—may define Syria’s political trajectory in the post-Assad era.
