The collapse of the 61-year-long Baath regime initiated a new political process for the Syrian state. The Syrian opposition led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) overthrew Bashar Assad's regime on Dec. 8 when they took control of the capital city of Damascus. The opposition took over the administration from the Assad-era prime minister. There are many discussions going on about the future of the state. At the same time, some claim that the despotic regime is over and a bright future awaits the Syrian people. Some others have concerns about the future of the state since there are different parameters that can change the course of the developments. Many observers expect difficulties and challenges for Syria, mainly based on previous examples such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. Therefore, we have to ask the question, “What awaits Syria in the future?” and answer it by briefly explaining the possibility of several scenarios.
We may compare Syria with the case of Afghanistan. After the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, different resistance groups began to fight with one another. The state structure failed and eventually, the Taliban took control of the country in the mid-1990s. The 20 years of U.S. invasion followed that. After that 20-year interval, the Taliban came to power for the second time in 2021 after the withdrawal of the American troops from the country.
The developments of the last two weeks in Syria show us that the opposition groups will not repeat the mistakes made in Afghanistan. The new Syrian government has agreed with other opposition factions to dissolve them all and merge them under the Defense Ministry. The government officials have stated that military officers who defected from the Assad regime’s army will also be able to join the new ministry. The government is careful to avoid clashes with other armed groups. Furthermore, the new Syrian government has repeatedly declared that they will not seek revenge against the former regime and suppress ethnic and religious minorities living in the country, such as Sunni Kurds, Shiite Arabs, the Druze community and Greek and Armenian Orthodox Christians.
Another example that we should look at is the Iraqi case. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the collapse of the Saddam regime, the state largely came under the control of the Shiite majority. However, the country was politically divided into two spheres of influence, namely American and Iranian. The Iraqi state faced four problems. One was the new state structure based on ethnic divisions, while on the one hand, the central government was restructured based on ethnic divisions. According to the new system, the main executive body, the Prime Ministry, is under the control of Shiite Arabs, while the passive Presidency is under the control of the Kurds. On the other hand, a federal structure was established. They face difficulties in terms of keeping a balance between the two systems.
Also, Iraq largely came under the control of the "two liberators," namely the U.S. and Iran. The new Iraqi governments have been trying to liberate the state from these “liberators” and struggling for absolute national sovereignty and political independence. For now, it is still largely dependent on these two states. There are also alternative armed groups within the country. The existence of the Hashd al-Shaabi militia groups has greatly influenced the state system. Furthermore, the Iraqi sects took revenge on other ethnic and religious groups, which led to mistrust among different ethnic and religious groups living in the country.
In that sense, the new Syrian government cannot turn into the Iraqi case since the Syrian national context is quite different. First of all, the Syrian regime was overthrown by the Syrian armed groups, not by external powers. Second, the main supporter of the Syrian opposition, Türkiye, has a different perspective on the Syrian state. Türkiye supports the territorial integrity of the state. It does not follow a sectarian policy toward Syria. Its inclusive perspective will help the new government to consolidate the national state system. Third, the new government is determined not to allow the Syrian opposition groups to keep their arms. They have a firm position to form a united government.
The third scenario is the Lebanese system, in which the state system is constitutionally designed according to ethnic and religious populations. For instance, the president of the country must come from a Maronite Christian background, the speaker of Parliament from Shiite Muslims and the prime minister from Sunni Muslims. With the change in the ratio of the population, the state system has become dysfunctional. For different reasons, the Maronites are no longer the largest religious group.
The Lebanese case cannot be implemented in Syria since it did not work for Lebanon either. Mainly due to this volatile system, the Lebanese government is unable to secure political stability. Moreover, the historical legacy of the Syrian people is quite different. The Syrian people have been living in peaceful coexistence for centuries. For example, Aleppo is known for its real cosmopolitan nature.
The last scenario is the establishment of a central government, which is the best scenario for Syria and its people. The new Syrian leadership has to establish a central government since quotas for ethnic and religious groups create problems. The Syrian people have a long tradition of peaceful coexistence and a central government is the best scenario for the Syrian state. The new constitution must be all-inclusive and based on equal citizenship, not on group identities. Equal citizenship is important, especially for the Kurds, since, until very recently, thousands of Kurds were denied citizenship in Syria by the Baath regime. I am sure that if external powers do not interfere in the domestic affairs of Syria, the Syrian people will successfully establish a unified government and consolidate the national sovereignty of their state.
