The View from Damascus – Syria’s Constitutional Declaration: Reform or a Return to Authoritarianism?

The Syrian Constitutional Declaration, signed by transitional president Ahmad al-Sharaa on March 13, 2025, was meant to establish a legal framework for Syria’s five-year transitional period following the fall of the Assad regime. However, instead of fostering national unity and democracy, the declaration has sparked widespread controversy and opposition, both domestically and internationally.

Critics argue that the document centralizes power in the hands of the president, fails to guarantee democratic governance, and excludes key ethnic and religious groups, particularly Kurds, Syriacs, and Druze. Furthermore, its religious provisions and ambiguous human rights safeguards have raised concerns that it may lead to a new form of authoritarianism, rather than a genuine democratic transition.

This analysis examines the key provisions of the declaration, the concerns raised by various political and ethnic groups, and the regional and international reactions to its adoption.

Key Provisions and Controversial Aspects

1. Concentration of Power in the Presidency

The 53-article document grants the transitional president sweeping powers, including:

• Appointing and dismissing government ministers
• Appointing one-third of the People’s Assembly and selecting the committee that appoints the remaining two-thirds
• Holding the position of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces
• Having the authority to dissolve the Constitutional Court and appoint its judges

Although the declaration claims to establish a separation of powers, in reality, it eliminates any checks and balances, making the legislative and judicial branches subordinate to the executive authority. This mirrors the centralized control of the previous regime, raising concerns that Syria is merely replacing one form of autocratic rule with another.

2. The Role of Religion in Legislation

One of the most contentious provisions is the designation of Islamic Sharia as “the” primary source of legislation, as opposed to “a” primary source—a significant shift from previous Syrian constitutions.

This change:

• Restricts lawmakers from drawing on other legal sources, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Syria was one of the first countries to sign.
• Obligates legislators to apply Islamic jurisprudence across all legal domains, including nationality, civil, criminal, labor, and family law.
• Undermines the state’s neutrality, potentially marginalizing non-Muslim communities and deepening societal divisions.

Many legal experts argue that this formulation imposes religious interpretations on the entire legal system, reinforcing concerns of sectarian governance rather than a secular and inclusive political framework.

3. The Illusion of Separation of Powers

While Article 2 states that the declaration “establishes a political system based on the separation of powers,” the actual provisions contradict this principle.

• The executive branch dominates the legislative and judicial branches, rendering them ineffective as independent institutions.
• The judicial system is effectively controlled by the presidency, with the Constitutional Court lacking independence.

This structure ensures that no institution has the authority to challenge the president’s decisions, effectively shielding the executive from legal accountability.

4. Restrictions on Fundamental Freedoms

The constitution claims to guarantee freedom of expression, press, political participation, and the formation of parties. However, these rights are subject to vague conditions, including:

• Protection of public order
• Respect for the rights of others
• Compliance with future laws that will regulate these rights

By delaying the enforcement of these rights until unspecified future legislation is enacted, the declaration effectively nullifies them, leaving room for government suppression of dissent.

5. Ambiguity in Human Rights Protections

Article 15 states that “the state shall safeguard human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with humanitarian covenants and norms.” However, it does not explicitly commit to:

• International human rights treaties
• The fundamental principles of freedom, security, and equality

By replacing these protections with vague references to “humanitarian norms”, the declaration weakens legal guarantees for minority groups, further exacerbating their fears of exclusion and persecution.

Ethnic and Religious Opposition

Kurdish and Syriac political organizations have been among the most vocal in their opposition to the constitutional declaration.

• The Kurdish National Council (KNC) and Syriac Union Party argue that the document disregards Syria’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious identity.
• Kurdish leaders warn that the declaration excludes non-Arab communities, effectively denying them equal representation.
• Syriac Christian leaders criticize the lack of cultural and linguistic protections, calling it a continuation of the Assad-era marginalization.

Druze Concerns: A Threat to Religious Pluralism

The Druze community has rejected the constitutional declaration due to:

• Excessive presidential powers, which they argue mirror the authoritarian rule of the previous regime.
• Religious exclusivity, which alienates non-Muslim minorities.
• Ambiguities in presidential eligibility, raising concerns that foreign individuals or sectarian figures could dominate Syria’s leadership.

Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, a key Druze leader, warned that the declaration was “monochromatic and exclusionary, failing to reflect Syria’s diversity.”

International and Regional Reactions

The constitutional declaration has also drawn international scrutiny:

• The United Nations has called for a more inclusive political process.
• The United States criticized the exclusion of minority voices and warned against authoritarian consolidation.
• Russia has urged national dialogue but refrained from openly criticizing the government.
• Turkey remains wary of Kurdish exclusion, fearing that it may destabilize northern Syria.
• Israel has cited the controversy as evidence of instability, warning that the administration’s Islamic rhetoric may lead to further sectarian conflicts.

A Call for a More Inclusive Approach

Legal experts and civil society groups argue that a truly democratic transition requires a participatory process that includes:

• Experienced constitutional and legal scholars
• Ethnic and religious minorities
• Independent civil society organizations

Mona Assad, a leading advocate for constitutional reform, has called for the replacement of the current declaration with the 1950 Constitution as a temporary governing framework, arguing that the rushed and exclusionary nature of the current declaration will only deepen divisions and undermine national unity.

An Uncertain Future

Rather than uniting Syrians under a democratic framework, the Constitutional Declaration has exacerbated tensions and raised fears of authoritarian consolidation. By centralizing power, marginalizing minority groups, and restricting freedoms, the document risks repeating the mistakes of the past.

For the new administration to gain legitimacy and ensure long-term stability, it must:

1. Address minority concerns and guarantee equal representation.
2. Reinforce the separation of powers to prevent the concentration of authority.
3. Clarify human rights protections by aligning them with international legal standards.
4. Allow for meaningful participation in drafting a permanent constitution.

Without these reforms, Syria may find itself trapped in another cycle of exclusion, conflict, and authoritarian rule—an outcome that would jeopardize the hard-fought struggle for democracy and justice.