In the aftermath of the Assad regime’s collapse in December 2024, Ahmed al-Sharaa, backed by the “Deterrence Against Aggression” operations room, emerged as the interim leader of Syria. Sharaa’s leadership represents a pivotal moment for a nation grappling with the legacy of authoritarianism, war, and societal fragmentation. Yet, his vision—a blend of ambition and ambiguity—raises both hopes and questions about Syria’s path forward.
This analysis draws on a comprehensive study published by Haramoon Center for Modern Studies, which meticulously examines Sharaa’s statements, policies, and the broader implications of his leadership during this critical transitional phase. Additionally, insights from Wael al-Sawah’s reflective piece, “What is Ahmed al-Sharaa’s Position?”, provide further context by drawing parallels with historical precedents and highlighting the complexities of Sharaa’s emerging role.
A Fragile Transition
After six decades of Baathist rule and authoritarian governance, Syria stands at a crossroads. The immediate priorities are restoring security, disarming militias, and stabilizing governance. Sharaa’s approach centers on preserving state institutions while steering the country toward a modern system responsive to its people’s aspirations for freedom and dignity. However, the absence of a formal roadmap for the transitional period has left many uncertain about the contours of this new chapter.
Institutional Continuity and Leadership
Al-Sharaa emphasizes institutional continuity, aiming to prevent the chaos that could arise from a power vacuum. His insistence on an “interim team” of trusted technocrats, however, has drawn criticism for sidelining political diversity. While he defends this approach as a necessity for short-term stability, skeptics fear it could entrench a centralized, exclusionary governance model reminiscent of past regimes.
Wael al-Sawah notes that Al-Sharaa’s rapid rise to power mirrors other revolutionary leaders in the Middle East, such as Gamal Abdel Nasser and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who consolidated power through revolutionary councils. However, Al-Sharaa’s lack of a formal title or institutional framework leaves his authority in a state of ambiguity, reminiscent of Ayatollah Khomeini’s informal yet overarching leadership model in post-revolutionary Iran.
The Elusive Constitution
A critical gap in Al-Sharaa’s vision is the lack of a declared transitional constitution. While he has acknowledged the need for constitutional reform, he portrays it as a technical rather than a political process—a stance that some view as an attempt to delay addressing contentious issues like the balance between religion and state, minority rights, and democratic guarantees. Without a clear framework, the risk of perpetuating ambiguity looms large.
Al-Sawah’s analysis highlights the deliberate vagueness surrounding Al-Sharaa’s position, suggesting that this ambiguity may be a strategy to retain flexibility or to navigate tensions between his Islamist base and a broader coalition of moderate Syrians. Historical precedents underscore the importance of transparency in transitioning from revolutionary legitimacy to constitutional governance.
National Dialogue and Political Pluralism
Central to Al-Sharaa’s plan is a National Dialogue Conference intended to pave the way for a representative political system. He envisions the conference as a platform for drafting a new constitution, achieving transitional justice, and ensuring national reconciliation. However, his critics question the mechanisms for selecting participants and whether the outcomes will genuinely reflect Syria’s diverse political and social fabric.
Balancing Unity and Diversity
Al-Sharaa’s stance on federalism reflects his prioritization of national unity. While rejecting any form of decentralization that might fuel secessionist sentiments, he advocates for addressing Kurdish rights within a unified state framework. His proposals to integrate armed groups into a national army further underscore his commitment to consolidating state authority, though the practicalities of disarmament and reintegration remain fraught with challenges.
Al-Sawah’s commentary draws attention to Sharaa’s delicate balancing act between appeasing his Islamist supporters and addressing the demands of secular and minority groups. The pressure from below—exerted by Islamist factions—contrasts sharply with the “pressure from above” from liberal and secular Syrians, highlighting the competing forces shaping Sharaa’s policies.
Economic Vision: A Work in Progress
Rebuilding Syria’s devastated economy requires a delicate balance between state intervention and market liberalization. Sharaa’s initial economic policies suggest a shift toward privatization and a free-market model. Yet, critics warn against hasty decisions, such as selling off state assets without safeguards, which could deepen inequality and hinder long-term recovery. Effective economic planning, grounded in inclusivity and sustainability, will be key to restoring livelihoods and attracting international investment.
Justice and Reconciliation
Sharaa’s vision for transitional justice strikes a careful balance between accountability and reconciliation. While advocating for the prosecution of perpetrators of major crimes, he also calls for broad amnesties to avoid perpetuating cycles of revenge. This pragmatic approach has its merits but risks alienating victims who demand comprehensive justice. Establishing an independent transitional justice mechanism will be crucial for building public trust.
Navigating Foreign Relations
Syria’s foreign policy under Sharaa reflects a pragmatic shift from confrontation to cooperation. He seeks to reestablish ties with regional and global powers, including Russia and Turkey, while avoiding entanglement in rivalries like those between the U.S. and Iran. Sharaa’s emphasis on prioritizing reconstruction and development over geopolitical ambitions signals a new direction, yet his approach to sanctions and international diplomacy lacks detailed strategies.
The Road Ahead
Ahmed Al-Sharaa’s leadership embodies both the promise and pitfalls of Syria’s transitional period. His focus on stability, institutional preservation, and national unity offers a pragmatic foundation for recovery. However, the absence of a comprehensive, written roadmap leaves critical questions unanswered. Can his government balance inclusivity with efficiency? Will transitional justice satisfy both victims and perpetrators? And can Syria navigate its internal and external challenges to emerge as a democratic, sovereign state?
For Syria to succeed, the onus lies not only on Sharaa but also on the broader Syrian society and the international community. Achieving a stable, democratic future will require transparency, participatory governance, and sustained support. The coming years will be a litmus test for whether Syria’s transition can truly deliver on the aspirations of its people for freedom, dignity, and justice.
