The Syrian National Dialogue Conference, held in Damascus on February 24–25, 2025, marks a critical juncture in Syria’s political transition. Spearheaded by President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, the conference was framed as a platform for national reconciliation, governance restructuring, and the establishment of a new political framework for the country’s future. However, while the conference carried promises of inclusivity and reform, it also raised significant concerns regarding timing, representation, legitimacy, and its potential to translate into substantive political change.
This analysis explores the core messages of Al-Sharaa’s speech, the structural challenges of the dialogue, the political implications of its resolutions, and the broader regional and international dimensions shaping its success or failure.
Sharaa’s Vision: Centralization, Sovereignty, and Transitional Justice
From the outset, President Sharaa set a decisive tone, outlining the state’s unwavering commitment to sovereignty, national unity, and political centralization. His speech carried clear messages aimed at multiple audiences—Syrian factions, foreign powers, and the broader public.
- The State’s Monopoly on Armed Power
One of Sharaa’s strongest declarations was that all weapons must remain under state control. This statement was a direct rejection of any armed factions operating outside government authority, effectively shutting down any discussions about power-sharing with armed opposition groups. The message was twofold. Internally: It signaled that the government would not tolerate militias or independent security forces. Externally, It reinforced Syria’s rejection of foreign-backed factions attempting to maintain influence in various regions.
By stating that Syria’s governance model will remain centralized, Sharaa effectively dismissed any federalist or decentralized governance proposals, particularly those championed by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northeast. This move solidified the state’s unitary control but also alienated key groups that had previously engaged in dialogue.
- Transitional Justice: Reform or Political Calculus?
One of the most striking aspects of Sharaa’s address was his commitment to transitional justice. He announced the formation of a commission to prosecute figures from the previous regime, a move that was widely interpreted as an attempt to restore trust among revolutionary forces and distance the current leadership from Assad-era crimes.
However, questions remain:
- Is this a genuine effort at accountability, or a politically motivated purge?
- Will justice be selective, targeting specific figures while absolving others who have aligned with the new government?
- How will the trials be conducted, and under what legal framework?
The success of this initiative depends on whether it delivers real justice or simply serves as a tool for consolidating power under a new ruling elite.
- Syria’s Position on Regional and Foreign Intervention
Sharaa’s speech also carried implicit warnings to Israel, particularly regarding any efforts to alter the geopolitical status quo in southern Syria. He framed Syria as resistant to external interference, reaffirming its commitment to territorial integrity.
At the same time, he denounced sectarian and ethnic divisions as tools of foreign manipulation, warning against external actors attempting to exploit Syria’s social fabric for strategic gains. While this rhetoric aimed to reinforce national unity, it also underscored the government’s refusal to acknowledge political pluralism beyond state-defined parameters.
The Structural Challenges of the National Dialogue Conference
While Sharaa’s speech set the political tone, the structure, inclusivity, and execution of the conference itself revealed significant weaknesses.
- The Rushed Timeline and Limited Preparation
- Critics argue that the dialogue was hastily convened, leaving insufficient time for broad-based participation and substantive negotiations.
- Invitations, particularly to Syrians abroad, were sent at the last minute, making it logistically impossible for many key figures to attend.
- Instead of a well-planned, multi-stage process, the conference took the form of a short, concentrated event, limiting the depth of discussions.
A longer preparatory period—at least six months, as some analysts suggested—could have fostered greater legitimacy and more meaningful engagement.
- Representation and Legitimacy Concerns
- Many factions, particularly the Kurdish-led SDF and opposition figures in exile, were effectively excluded.
- Women’s representation, while improved at 25%, remained below the threshold needed for genuine gender-inclusive policymaking.
- The selection of participants appeared opaque, with some viewing the conference as an attempt to validate pre-determined government policies rather than facilitate genuine debate.
For the dialogue to be a true step toward democratic governance, it must not be reduced to a symbolic event used to consolidate elite power.
Political Implications: What Comes Next?
While the conference has set a framework for Syria’s transition, its real impact depends on what follows.
- Will the Outcomes Be Binding?
- The dialogue’s decisions are framed as “recommendations” rather than binding resolutions.
- The ultimate authority remains with the state’s executive leadership, raising concerns that the conference will not lead to meaningful policy shifts.
Without a concrete mechanism to implement reforms, the dialogue risks becoming a performative exercise rather than a transformative process.
- The Role of the Legislative Council and Constitutional Framework
- A separate legislative council is expected to draft a constitutional declaration, raising questions about the conference’s real decision-making power.
- The process for drafting Syria’s new constitution remains unclear—will it be participatory or controlled by a select elite?
Ensuring transparency in constitutional drafting will be critical in determining whether Syria is moving toward inclusive governance or reinforcing centralized rule.
- The Geopolitical Factor: Can Syria Regain Regional Influence?
- Sharaa acknowledged that Syria has lost regional influence, but signaled a desire to reclaim its strategic role.
- Restoring diplomatic ties with neighboring states and key global actors will require a balance between national sovereignty and pragmatic diplomacy.
- How Western governments and regional powers respond to the dialogue’s outcomes will shape Syria’s path forward—especially regarding sanctions and economic recovery.
Conclusion: A Step Forward or a Missed Opportunity?
The Syrian National Dialogue Conference has symbolic significance as a first step toward political transition. However, deep structural issues remain unresolved.
- Sharaa’s vision is clear: a centralized state, no compromise on sovereignty, and a selective approach to transitional justice.
- The dialogue’s rushed nature and limited inclusivity undermine its legitimacy.
- Implementation mechanisms are weak, making it unclear how much of the conference’s agenda will translate into real policy changes.
To be truly transformative, this process must evolve beyond elite-driven decision-making and incorporate broad-based, sustained dialogue over an extended period. Otherwise, it risks becoming yet another example of political theater rather than a genuine path to national reconciliation.
The coming months will determine whether this dialogue leads to real governance reforms or merely reinforces the status quo under a new leadership.
If Syria’s leadership truly seeks a durable transition, it must prioritize sustained engagement, political pluralism, and genuine power-sharing—or risk repeating the very cycle of authoritarianism and exclusion that led to its crisis in the first place.
