The article analyzes the emerging governance structure in Syria under Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), highlighting their inclusive rhetoric contrasted by an inclination towards a centralized presidential system. It discusses the implications of HTS’s stance on federalism, the role of sharia law, and the exclusion of international actors from the constitutional process, urging for a consensus-driven approach to prevent potential conflicts.
Since the takeover of Damascus by the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its associates in November 2024, there have been indications that they are contemplating the country’s future governance. HTS leaders have professed their intention to foster inclusivity among various minority groups in Syria. This rhetoric, presented by HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, implies a consideration of a presidential electoral framework for governance, which presents concerns regarding the potential centralization of power. Their reluctance to engage in federalism or decentralization poses further implications for national unity, which could exacerbate existing divisions. Furthermore, HTS’s stated commitment to establishing an Islamic framework for governance raises alarms regarding potential conflicts over the role of religion in state affairs.
Moreover, HTS appears to be preemptively defining the constitutional negotiation process, dismissing significant roles for international entities like the United Nations. While they suggest an extended timeline for developing a permanent constitution, the inherent organizational challenges faced by Syria, such as a substantial displaced population, complicate prospects for inclusive representation in negotiations. Presenting a voting structure based on majority rule instead of consensus raises additional concerns about minority rights in a predominantly conflict-embroiled context.
Drawing from strategies witnessed in prior regional constitutional developments, HTS’s desire to dominate the decision-making process signifies a troubling trajectory. The necessity for a consensus-driven approach in constitutional negotiations is essential to prevent repeating the cycle of violence and imposition witnessed in other contexts. Encouraging HTS to genuinely engage in a collaborative governance framework may provide a viable path towards a more stable and inclusive future for Syria.
The article discusses the political developments in Syria following the control of Damascus by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its allies. It delves into the group’s commitment to inclusive governance, particularly toward minority communities, juxtaposed with concerns over their predetermined governance structure, which appears to favor a presidential system over a parliamentary system. This article highlights the potential implications of HTS’s centralism, relationship with religion, and their exclusion of international oversight in the constitutional process.
In conclusion, while HTS has publicly depicted an inclusive approach toward governance in Syria, underlying actions suggest a resolve to establish a centralized presidential framework that lacks genuine negotiations with other factions. This presents significant dangers to the fragile peace and stability in the region. Encouraging a movement toward consensus and an open dialogue on governance structures is crucial to avert further violence and help rebuild the country.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
