In a country long accustomed to silencing difficult questions, even raising the issue—“What if the president resigned?”—can feel like a provocation, or worse, a betrayal. Syria has known two extremes: the sanctification of leadership and the fear of political vacuum. Citizens often respond with silence, a nervous whisper, or a wary deflection: “Why ask that now, at such a critical moment?”—as though every moment in Syria’s recent history has not been critical.
Some ask, “Why should he resign? Isn’t he the one who brought us to where we are now?”
Others reply, “And where exactly are we? At victory—or merely postponing collapse?”
No definitive answers exist in a country emerging from war, trailing behind it the shadows of massacres and smothered hopes. Perhaps the question isn’t about the individual, but about deeper structures: institutions enfeebled by years of uncertainty, and a nation still seeking firm footing beneath it.
Not Just If—But What Then?
The more pressing question might be: What have we prepared for a Syria without a singular leader? Have we built robust institutions, laid down legal frameworks, and begun to rebuild trust? If all power is vested in one individual, their departure becomes a disaster by design. Syrians have learned to trust only their caution. Leaders eventually leave—what matters is the legacy they leave behind.
Some continue to reject the question outright, declaringSharaa the “indispensable leader,” the man who “led Syria to victory,” insisting, “We will not abandon him, no matter what.” But such rhetoric overlooks an inconvenient truth: states must endure beyond individuals. Are we building a Syria for all Syrians—or just for those who shout the loudest or wield the most weapons?
Even debating the issue triggers accusations of betrayal or authoritarian nostalgia. Detractors see it as a rhetorical trap reinforcing the myth of the irreplaceable leader. Others argue that it is precisely the kind of question that must be asked—not to destabilise, but to prepare.
Al-Sharaa’s brief presidency has not escaped criticism: accusations of power centralisation, secretive negotiations with Israel, military operations in Suweida and coastal regions, and failures to address transitional justice. Detainees remain without due process, and amnesties for war criminals have eroded public trust.
The Language of Possibility
So, hypothetically: What would happen if President Sharaa resigned today?
The answers vary widely, depending on the respondent’s perspective. Yet many warn that resignation now could plunge Syria into a dangerous vacuum—especially given the unclear power dynamics within the security sector and the threat of further factional disintegration.
Perhaps rather than asking whether he should resign, we ought to consider: How can President Al-Sharaa—and we, the people—navigate this transitional period together?
What Syrians Want: Safety and Survival
At present, ordinary Syrians are not asking for grand political theories or charismatic saviours. Their demands are simple:
- Security: Personal and communal safety—freedom from gunfire, arbitrary arrest, and fear.
- Daily Necessities: Access to affordable food, electricity, clean water, healthcare, salaries, and dignity in daily life.
Some progress has been made in major cities regarding safety. However, missteps in Suweida and the coastal regions reveal the fragility of that stability. While basic goods are more widely available, rampant inflation and cash shortages render them inaccessible for many. Electricity remains sporadic, salary payments unreliable, and public services inconsistent. The state inherited a nation teetering on the brink of collapse—an undeniable burden—but many crises could have been alleviated through greater professionalism and accountability.
If He Doesn’t Resign—Then What?
For those who oppose resignation, the essential question remains: What now? How can Sharaa restore public trust and avoid becoming just another entry in Syria’s long ledger of failed leadership?
He must:
- Embrace transparency, both in governance and security affairs.
- Resist rebuilding a deep state, and instead place trust in those untainted by war crimes.
- Strengthen state institutions, with clear rules separating personal loyalty from public service.
- Transition from loyalty to meritocracy, as Sharaa once pledged in a speech about moving from revolution to statehood.
- Communicate national strategies clearly, to bridge the widening chasm between rulers and ruled.
- Reduce violence in all its forms—Syrians are weary, traumatised by a decade of brutality.
- Manage expectations with realism and measured planning, steering clear of empty promises or misleading propaganda.
Many Syrians remain afraid—still seeking escape, still broken, still waiting. What can be done to safeguard the remnants of their aspirations?
The answer does not lie in resignation for its own sake, but in a commitment to accountability, deliberate planning, shared power, and the rule of law. Syrians yearn for a leader of the people, one who speaks with them—not at them—and who embodies the revolution’s ideals: dignity, freedom, and justice.
A Closing Thought
Though securing bread is essential, we must not forget that Syria’s revolution was born not just of hunger, but of hope—a hope for liberty, dignity, morality, and the restoration of rights. That dream will only be realised through practical deeds, not poetic slogans—through sincere connections between people and those who govern them.
Above all, it requires leadership that listens.
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.
