Defusing the National Confrontation over the Centralized and Decentralized System

Briefing:

We clearly observe on social media the hostile clash among Syrians in their discussions about centralization and decentralization, where it is easy to sense the extent of partisanship on each side, even to the point of claiming correctness and monopolizing the truth in their arguments.

This article aims to raise awareness about political culture, which has become a science with its own schools and specialists who have established the political foundations of their theses within modern scientific methodologies—methods that strip any political approach to systems of governance from the confrontational context among differing citizens of the same country.

In political science, political systems are classified based on the method of power distribution, the decision-making mechanism, and the nature of the relationship between the government and the citizens. Accordingly, several main types of political systems have emerged, including:

1. Democratic Systems, which themselves vary into:
2. Liberal Democracy: Based on free elections, separation of powers, and the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms. Examples include the United States and France.
3. Social Democracy: Combines political democracy with social justice, where the state plays a role in providing services and ensuring fair wealth distribution. Examples include Sweden and Germany.
4. Direct Democracy: Citizens directly participate in decision-making, as was the case in some ancient Greek city-states.
5. Authoritarian Systems, which include:
6. Dictatorship: Where one person or a small group rules with absolute power without real popular oversight. There are many examples, with Assad’s Syria being a clear one, typical of many 20th-century regimes.
7. Autocracy: Power is concentrated in the hands of an individual or small elite, with no real public participation.
8. Oligarchy: A small elite group dominates political decision-making, often based on economic or military interests.
9. Totalitarian Systems, where the regime exercises absolute control over all aspects of political, social, and economic life, using repression to subjugate society. Assad’s Syria and former communist regimes like the Soviet Union are prime examples.
10. Monarchical Systems, which are either:
11. Constitutional Monarchy (or symbolic monarchy): Real power lies with the elected parliament and government. Examples include the UK and Spain.
12. Absolute Monarchy: The king holds unchecked power over state affairs, as seen in some historical regimes.
13. Republican Systems, which are divided into:
14. Presidential Republic: The president is both head of state and government, wielding strong executive powers. Examples include the United States and Brazil.
15. Parliamentary Republic: The president is a ceremonial figurehead, while real power lies with the prime minister who emerges from parliament, as in Germany and Italy.
16. Semi-Presidential Republic: Combines features of both presidential and parliamentary systems, where power is shared between the president and prime minister, such as in France.
17. Federal and Unitary Systems, which can be:
18. Federal System: Power is distributed between the central government and states or regions, each with its own authorities. Examples include the United States and India.
19. Unitary System: Power is centralized in the hands of the central government, with regions lacking significant political autonomy. Examples include France and Egypt.

Each of these systems can describe the structure of a particular country. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses, and its effectiveness depends on how well it upholds rights and freedoms, ensures justice, and promotes political participation.

On Decentralization:

In political science, decentralization and federalism are considered part of the studies concerning the distribution of power and the political administration of states. These two concepts are linked to the structure of the political system and the definition of the relationship between the central government and various administrative units, such as regions or states.

Decentralization is an administrative and political system in which a degree of authority is granted to regions or local units, without granting them full independence from the central government. There are several types of decentralization:

1. Administrative Decentralization: Local bodies are granted executive powers, but major decisions remain in the hands of the central government.
2. Political Decentralization: Regions have greater authority in decision-making and sometimes hold independent local elections.
3. Fiscal Decentralization: Regions or municipalities gain autonomy in managing their financial resources.

As for federalism, it is a system of governance in which power is divided between a central government and regional or local governments, where regions possess semi-independent powers as outlined in the constitution. Its key features include:

1. Shared sovereignty between the central government and the states or regions, as in the United States and Germany.
2. A clear constitution defining the powers of each level of government.
3. Legislative and administrative independence for regions, giving them greater capacity to manage their affairs compared to standard decentralization.

In terms of their position in political science, decentralization is considered a method of governmental administration and may exist within either a centralized political system or a federal one.

Meanwhile, federalism is considered a comprehensive political system that defines the state’s structure and how power is distributed internally.

Additionally, both concepts intersect with theories of the state, local governance, and participatory democracy in political science.

The Fear of Division:

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that calls for federalism are not necessarily calls for division; rather, it depends on the nature of its implementation and the political approach taken.

Federalism is a political and administrative system based on the distribution of power between the central government and regions or states, with a constitution regulating the relationship between both sides. Federalism is considered a successful model that promotes unity while enabling local self-governance.

However, challenges may arise that lead some societies to view federalism as a prelude to division—especially in the presence of ethnic or sectarian tensions, or when there is no genuine political will to maintain national unity. Federalism can serve as a means to strengthen the state through the effective distribution of powers, but it may also lead to potential secession if there is no consensus on a shared national identity.

Therefore, the matter depends on how federalism is designed and the degree of commitment by political forces to the unity of the country and its implementation in a manner that reinforces stability.

Approaching the Issue of Decentralization in Syria: Between Political Discourse and Social Reality

Political literature asserts that decentralization is not necessarily a form of division. In modern political science, decentralization refers to the distribution of authority between the central government and local units in a way that allows the latter to manage their own affairs, while maintaining the unity of the state.

On the other hand, division refers to the creation of independent political entities that could lead to the disintegration of the state.

Thus, no call for decentralization can be judged as a call for division without analyzing its content and political context.

In Syria’s case, calls for decentralization come amid political and structural turmoil, with some parties seeking to strengthen self-administration in certain areas—such as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Others view these moves as steps toward division, especially given the ethnic or nationalist inclinations of some proposed entities.

Thus, we believe that the rational approach to this issue should take into account three main factors:

1. The balance between self-governance and maintaining the unity of Syria.
2. The possibility of implementing an administrative decentralization model that serves regions without threatening the shared national identity.
3. Ensuring that decentralization is not exploited as an excuse to weaken the state or create semi-independent entities.

Contemporary political philosophers, such as John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, argue that any political model must be “inclusive” so as not to marginalize any group or threaten the unity of the state. Through this perspective, decentralization can be viewed as a mechanism to strengthen democracy by empowering local communities to manage their own affairs without the need for political separation.

Conversely, caution must be exercised to prevent decentralization from becoming a tool for dividing political and geographical influence, especially if a unifying national umbrella is not guaranteed.

Therefore, the potential scenarios for implementing decentralization in Syria, as it appears, are:

1. The administrative decentralization model, where provinces are allowed to manage their services, such as education and healthcare, without granting them independent legislative powers.
2. The restricted political decentralization model, where regions are given extensive powers in certain areas, but sovereign decisions remain in the hands of the central government.
3. The conditional federalism model, where regions have local governments, but within a clear constitutional framework that prevents fragmentation.

Here, the central question arises: how can we reconcile the differing demands?

This question can be addressed by approaching the issue of decentralization in Syria through a genuine political dialogue that balances:

1. The protection of Syrian territorial unity.
2. Empowering various regions to manage their affairs without becoming separate entities.
3. Ensuring that decentralization is not a step toward division but a tool for effective governance.

Our Proposal:

We have presented our vision in the Syrian Future Movement regarding a third option between decentralization and centralization, which is the “Cooperative Decentralization Model,” as outlined in a paper published on our official website titled “Centralization, Decentralization, and the Third Option.” We believe it can be a strong consensual solution for Syria if implemented in a balanced manner that addresses political and social challenges.

This model differs from federalism or traditional decentralization, as it is based on effective collaboration between the central government and local administrations. Its aim is to achieve a responsible distribution of power without leading to fragmentation or divisions.

The advantages of the Cooperative Decentralization Model that we see are:

1. Protecting the unity of the state, as this model grants wide powers to local administrations without undermining national decision-making unity.
2. Enhancing national consensus, by involving all Syrian factions and components in managing their affairs without escalating fears of fragmentation.
3. Distributing governance responsibilities, rather than creating separate entities, this model fosters continuous cooperation between the central government and provinces.
4. Economic and social integration, as it allows different regions to set their developmental priorities within a unified national plan.

Conclusion:

Perhaps the most important question raised here is: How can participatory decentralization be implemented in Syria?

We see the answer in formulating a clear constitutional framework that grants local administrations executive and administrative powers, but within a unified national umbrella. Additionally, creating joint oversight mechanisms between the central government and local bodies is crucial to ensure that powers are not exploited individually. Strengthening the integration of regions through unified economic policies will prevent the emergence of isolated entities, ultimately empowering local communities through local elections, but within a system that ensures continuous cooperation between all parts of the state. We believe this is the right path to cementing the alternative we propose.

Finally, the cooperative decentralization model can be a point of convergence between various parties, as it provides administrative self-governance without opening the door for political division. Its implementation requires strong political will and a comprehensive vision for managing diversity within Syria, making it a mechanism for enhancing stability rather than a gateway to new conflicts.

What matters most in this article is to move the debate on centralization versus decentralization beyond mutual accusations of betrayal and national confrontation, viewing this disagreement as a natural product of political science and philosophy. Therefore, we strongly recommend, from both the scientific and political offices of the Syrian Future Movement, that this disagreement be addressed with national awareness, an open mind, and a systematic academic discussion. Each party should present its factual evidence for its vision in a spirit of civic peace and mutual respect. Through this, we hope to reach, in the first step, a recognition of our intellectual and political diversities, considering that diversity is a cultural asset that must be preserved within its effective civil framework. Thus, the cooperative decentralization model can become a flexible solution that achieves balance between local governance and national administration, if adopted with a clear constitutional text, mutual oversight mechanisms, and a national framework that prevents separatist tendencies.

Scientific Office

Political Office

Research Team

Research and Studies Department

Articles

Syrian Future Movement