President Ahmad al-Sharaa has issued a legislative decree establishing a new People’s Assembly composed of 100 elected members and 50 appointed directly by the presidency. The move has sparked wide-ranging debate across political and media circles, raising questions about its implications for Syria’s political transition and the balance of power in the post-conflict era.
Crisis of Legitimacy or Engineered Balance?
Political analyst Tarek al-Ahmad argues that the dual structure—partially elected and partially appointed—is less about creating balance and more a response to an ongoing legitimacy crisis. He contends that the current constitutional declaration is partial and weak, insufficient to lay the foundations for a credible political system. In this light, the formation of a new assembly appears to be an attempt by the interim authority to enhance its legitimacy through the appearance of broader participation.
Journalist Nadine Ouda also views the decree with skepticism. In an interview with Ultra Syria, she noted that while the measure is presented as a step toward political “balance,” the appointment of one-third of the assembly members raises serious concerns about the body’s independence and its ability to hold the executive to account—particularly in the absence of clear and transparent criteria for these appointments.
Alternative Views: A Transitional Necessity
Legal expert Mustafa Hameed offers a contrasting perspective, seeing the decree as a necessary step in the transitional phase. He argues that combining appointment with election should not be seen as a betrayal of democratic principles, but rather as a mechanism to broaden representation—particularly for communities or qualified individuals who are underrepresented due to weak political organization or the country’s limited democratic experience after decades of repression.
Concerns Over Representation and Independence
According to Ahmad, the new arrangement does not reflect substantive change but instead constitutes a superficial adjustment of a deeply imbalanced political scene. The appointment mechanism, he argues, is an unprecedented workaround to compensate for a lack of electoral legitimacy.
Ouda adds that without legal guarantees ensuring electoral fairness or independent oversight, the legitimacy of the new assembly will likely remain under question both domestically and internationally.
Ahmad further suggests that the appointments are designed not only to offset flawed electoral outcomes but also to preempt any single political or sectarian group from dominating the assembly. He stresses, however, that genuine independence remains absent in a body that is neither backed by a ratified constitution nor governed by a modern, transparent electoral law.
Comparing Syria’s experience to regional models, Ouda notes that similar hybrid systems are often used to engineer legislative outcomes and maintain political loyalty, rather than to promote real pluralism or accountability.
For his part, Hameed cautions against applying the benchmarks of established democracies to a country still navigating a fragile post-war recovery. “Legitimacy is built gradually through institutions,” he says, “not solely through procedural formalities.” He believes the presence of appointed members could help stabilize a society still grappling with identity-based divisions and security challenges.
No Real Pluralism Without Reform
Ahmad is unequivocal in his view that presidential appointments contradict democratic norms, calling instead for a comprehensive political process that includes national dialogue, a new constitution, and an electoral law fit for a modern republic.
He also warns that in the absence of organized political parties, electoral contests will be dominated by wealthy elites, much like under the previous regime where financial power was the decisive factor in elections.
Appointment Logic and Popular Acceptance
Nadine Ouda sees the timing of the decree as part of an effort to reshape the political landscape rather than a genuine response to reform demands. She cautions that unless serious amendments are made to limit presidential appointments and expand public participation, the new assembly risks becoming a superficial façade that reproduces existing power structures.
Ahmad highlights the legal ambiguity surrounding the appointment process, noting that it may be based on personal discretion in the absence of a clear legal framework. He points out that combining election and appointment is unprecedented in Syria’s legislative history and more commonly found in chambers of commerce or industry—not in national parliaments.
In his assessment of the assembly’s legitimacy, Ahmad predicts that it will fail to gain meaningful recognition, either domestically or abroad. He believes the core problem lies not just in appointments, but in an electoral process built on flawed foundations. While he concedes that appointed members may appear more credible than those elected under questionable conditions, the assembly as a whole will likely lack political substance.
By contrast, Hameed urges a more pragmatic view of the transitional context. He argues that rapid institutional steps are necessary to fill the constitutional vacuum, stressing that what matters most now is not form, but the capacity to launch a new political cycle that offers stability and gradual democratic development.
Diverging Positions, Shared Demand for a New Political Path
Tarek al-Ahmad insists that Syria’s main political parties—those with real historical legitimacy—must be brought into a comprehensive national dialogue to build a political life based on real laws, constitutional legitimacy, and effective elections, not symbolic representation. He criticizes figures who once aligned with the former regime and are now siding with the new authorities, insisting they are part of the problem, not the solution.
In closing, Mustafa Hameed underscores that comparative models should not be blindly applied to Syria’s unique context. He calls on political elites to engage constructively with the political process rather than dismiss it entirely. “Tearing down the framework without offering viable alternatives,” he warns, “will only create a new vacuum—not a solution.”
The debate over the formation of Syria’s new People’s Assembly reflects broader tensions over the country’s political future. While some view it as a necessary institutional step within the transitional process, others see it as a repackaging of long-standing structures that fail to meet the demands of pluralism, accountability, and broad-based legitimacy.
Between these competing interpretations, a central question remains: Can this new legislative body fulfill its mandate, provide meaningful oversight, and contribute to a balanced political order in post-conflict Syria?
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.
