Because politics is not an optional pursuit we can shun or escape—and because it shapes the quality of our education and healthcare, the air we breathe, and the terms of our very existence, from our most basic needs to the deepest meanings of citizenship and freedom—we cannot elude its influence, just as we cannot evade the climate we live in. As Robert Dahl once wrote, politics is inescapable. And so, when politics falters or breaks down, its consequences are not confined to theoretical debate; they press heavily on the smallest details of daily life.
This is a simplified prelude to what politics means in our lives, one that strikes us in the face with every decision or statement issued by the current Syrian authorities. Nearly six months after the fall of the Assad regime, the new government continues to rely on a political discourse filled with promises suspended in midair and measures devoid of any real political value. This was most visible in the hastily arranged National Dialogue Conference—a performative gesture more than a genuine mechanism to end conflict or give voice to the communities most harmed by it. Similarly, the interim constitutional declaration was issued without sufficient societal consultation, overlooking key principles of democratic transition such as inclusive political participation and equitable representation.
Before that came the abrupt dismissal of thousands of civil servants under the vague pretexts of “remnants of the old regime” or “excess labor,” without any serious consideration of the implications for state institutions or the social tensions that such actions stir—adding new grievances to Syria’s open wounds and deepening public distrust toward the new ruling authorities.
Further complicating matters has been the reproduction of a new clientelist network, privileging those with proximity to power in appointments and promotions. Add to this the controversy surrounding foreign fighters, and the result is a hollowing out of earlier promises and a reshuffling of elite figures who returned to Damascus after Assad’s fall—rather than enabling the sidelined domestic talent embedded in long-standing institutions. The formation of the new government under the banner of technocracy has only confirmed that this authority is more concerned with managing appearances than building trust. It seeks to exploit the symbolism of liberation to justify monopolising decision-making, bolstered by the sweeping powers vested in the transitional president.
The transitional authority in Syria is trying to avoid confrontation with urgent demands—yet ends up crashing into reality instead.
This is not a blanket condemnation of Syria’s fledgling experience. But what we are witnessing is not merely weak governance—it is something more revealing: what might best be described as political incoherence. If we borrow from the linguistic meaning of the term “incoherence” (rakaka in Arabic), it does not imply outright error, but rather weakness of form—sentences that do not know where they begin or end, words that are grammatically linked yet fail to convey a clear idea. Political incoherence follows a similar pattern. It may stem from good intentions, but it reveals a lack of prudence and foresight in decision-making. It is not an act of malice, but a confused hesitation disguised as caution. Yet the outcome is the same: the erosion of political meaning and an inability to construct a coherent entity we might call a state.
Some may be tempted to grant the new leadership full marks for its diplomatic breakthroughs—such as securing a pledge from U.S. President Donald Trump to lift sanctions that have burdened the Syrian people. But this should be viewed as the fruit of tireless efforts led by regional actors, especially Arab allies, not the product of a sophisticated Syrian foreign policy. To claim otherwise is to double down on political incoherence. We all know that interests are not bestowed through verbal promises or diplomatic pleasantries—they are built internally, on the foundation of a coherent and credible national project.
The race for foreign recognition, along with concessions whose costs and terms remain hidden from the public, signals a non-transparent negotiation process. It undermines the essence of politics as a public affair, transforming it into a closed arena for elite deal-making.
What we see today from the transitional authority in Damascus is simply a continuation of political incoherence: it does not practice repression, but constantly hints at it. It does not reject democracy outright, but defers it indefinitely under the pretext of time constraints and the sensitivity of the moment. These are not entirely invalid excuses—but they betray a lack of experience and political competence. The leadership tries to dodge difficult demands, only to collide with the inescapable realities: deteriorating security, eroding public trust, and a growing sense of betrayal among a populace whose legitimacy is being tested.
Had the leadership possessed a firm and genuine understanding of politics, we would not be mired in basic debates over governance, participation, and representation. We would instead be charting a clear course toward the kind of state Syrians have long aspired to—one that reflects their collective will and defines the system that shapes public policy. From there, Syria could craft a coherent foreign policy worthy of its civilisational heritage and geopolitical importance—turning both into assets for overcoming the wasted years of the previous regime.
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.
