In the aftermath of Bashar al-Assad’s fall in December 2024, Syria’s political landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation. The country is now abuzz with political discussions, reconstruction plans, and high-level visits from Arab and international delegations. New leaders are being pressed on a wide array of questions—governance, economic strategy, the role of Islamic law, educational reform, gender dynamics, and ethnic relations. Yet, amid this whirlwind of activity, a critical component remains missing: the presence of political parties.
Columnist Omar Al-Khatib argues in a detailed analysis in Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that the political parties’ absence poses a serious threat to Syria’s hoped-for transition to democracy. While physical reconstruction is a monumental challenge, rebuilding Syria’s social and political fabric is even more delicate—fraught with the legacies of repression, deep communal wounds, and the unresolved issues of transitional justice. Without vibrant, functioning political parties, efforts to build a pluralistic and accountable system may falter. Political diversity, ideological debate, and public oversight are all essential to a healthy democratic process—and they are impossible without party structures.
No Democracy Without Parties
As Syrian writer and former political prisoner Jamal Saeed observes, democracy is fundamentally about the contest of political programs—debated in parliaments and across media platforms. Parties are not merely vehicles for elections; they are mechanisms for peaceful power alternation and institutionalised political dialogue. “Opposition parties,” Saeed notes, “serve as societal watchdogs. Their existence ensures that the struggle for power remains civil and within the framework of the law.”
Researcher Abdullah Sukkar echoes this sentiment, describing political parties as the essential instruments for achieving the revolution’s original goals: justice and democratic governance. Modern political parties, by their very nature, bring together individuals from various disciplines and contribute informed perspectives on political, economic, and social issues. Through coherent policy platforms, they articulate visions for the country’s future and seek public support accordingly—a dynamic entirely absent from Syria during the long decades of one-party rule.
The Baath Era: From Pluralism to Totalitarianism
To understand the vacuum left by today’s lack of parties, one must revisit Syria’s political history. During the first half of the 20th century, the country had a vibrant, if tumultuous, political scene. Parties formed across ideological lines—communist, nationalist, and religious—participated in elections, and contributed to a pluralistic, if imperfect, public life. Despite repeated military coups, parliamentary politics endured.
This changed with the Baathist coup of 1963, and especially with Hafez al-Assad’s seizure of power in 1970. From that point onward, political parties were either dismantled or co-opted. The so-called “National Progressive Front,” created by Assad, was a hollow shell—designed to give a veneer of pluralism while consolidating Baathist supremacy. Dissenting factions, whether communist or nationalist, were either split, repressed, or forced into exile. As Ahmad al-Arabi, a political activist, notes, even the regime’s constitution codified Baath Party supremacy, banning all political activity within the military and student bodies outside Baathist structures.
The brutal crackdown reached its apex with the Hama massacre of 1982 and the broader war against the Muslim Brotherhood. By the 1990s, organized political life had effectively ceased to exist in Syria, reduced to secret circles, banned publications, and long prison sentences.
A Symbolic Opposition, Crippled by Repression
The Assad regime’s decades-long assault on party politics had long-term consequences. Not only were parties denied the opportunity to evolve alongside global political trends—such as the collapse of the Soviet Union or the rise of economic liberalism—but their internal renewal was systematically blocked. Youth engagement was discouraged, and leadership structures ossified.
Dr. Moaz al-Khatib, a former detainee and prominent opposition figure, recalls that under Assad, political parties were little more than whispered names, shared books, and the looming specter of imprisonment. “Even the ruling Baath Party never had to present a coherent political program,” he notes bitterly. Parties became insular, irrelevant, and fragmented—hardly capable of mobilising political support or effecting change.
The Revolution and the Struggle to Rebuild Political Life
Between 2011 and 2024, Syrians made repeated attempts to revive political life, often under fire from both the regime and radical opposition groups. Political bodies such as the Syrian National Council and the Syrian Opposition Coalition emerged, sometimes with international support. Yet these bodies often lacked credibility, coherence, and grassroots connections. Many were composed of recycled cadres from historical opposition parties, thrust into a new era without meaningful adaptation.
As al-Arabi argues, Assad’s regime played a deliberate role in undermining these structures—by tolerating tame “internal opposition” and derailing unified representation through futile negotiations and constitutional discussions. Over time, these initiatives lost momentum, and the political opposition became increasingly sidelined.
After Assad: New Beginnings or Deeper Chaos?
The fall of Assad has opened the door to political reconfiguration—but also to instability. Dr. al-Khatib offers a bleak assessment: the country is fragmented, lacking cohesive social or political forces. He remains skeptical of current efforts to form new parties, describing them as shallow reiterations of outdated language and failed models. “There are no parties of consequence,” he insists, “just repeated slogans and old rhetoric.”
Conversely, Ahmad al-Arabi sees a glimmer of hope. While he agrees that the old party structures are obsolete, he believes that a forward-looking, critical, and inclusive mindset could revive Syria’s political life. Any new party-building effort, he argues, must prioritize tangible socio-economic concerns, democratic values, and broad societal participation—not rigid ideological frameworks. “Syria needs a new political mind,” he says—one attuned to the aspirations of the youth who led the revolution and who will shape its future.
Islamism, Identity Politics, and the Road Ahead
Despite the fall of Assad, power remains concentrated in the hands of factions such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), whose members now occupy key security and military posts. Nevertheless, Jamal Saeed maintains that there is still an open window for party formation—though that window may be narrowing.
In today’s political vacuum, Islamist parties are likely to assert themselves strongly. According to al-Khatib, religion remains central to Syrian social life, and Islamism—if allowed to evolve—could mature into a political force that advocates for separating religion from state authority. In other words, political Islam could become a gateway to modern democratic practices, if it learns from past failures.
Jamal Saeed also notes that future political pluralism must contend with sectarian and ethnic dynamics. Kurdish nationalist parties, Druze groups such as Rijal al-Karama, and moderate Islamist actors will all likely stake claims in the emerging order. Alongside them, newer secular democratic movements—if grounded in Syrian civic identity rather than pan-Arabism—may find renewed relevance.
Despite the global decline of ideological politics, Saeed insists that political movements still require a binding vision. Whether rooted in religion, nationalism, social justice, or civic republicanism, ideologies provide coherence and purpose. In today’s Syria, the most promising frameworks, he argues, are those that combine political freedom with equal citizenship—and, in some cases, Islamic values reinterpreted for the modern age.
Parties as the Backbone of Democracy
Global experience confirms what Syria is now rediscovering: democracy cannot thrive without parties. Harvard political scientist Nancy Rosenblum has warned that attempts to bypass parties and appeal directly to “the people” often lead to chaos rather than empowerment. While party structures may face declining popularity worldwide, they remain the essential infrastructure for representative politics and democratic accountability.
This poses a decisive question for Syria’s future: will a new generation of political parties—and politicians—emerge to navigate the country’s difficult transition, or will the current vacuum be filled by chaos, militarism, and populist tribal or religious leaders? The answer will shape the Syrian state for decades to come.
