Syrian Future Movement is following with great interest the symbolic developments taking place in the country, especially the ceremony to launch the new visual identity of the Syrian Arab Republic, which was held yesterday, Thursday, July 3, 2025, in the capital Damascus, under official patronage and with a wide presidential and institutional presence.
Syrian Future Movement sees this step as an attempt to launch a new national narrative, expressing the theoretical transition from the “security state” to the “guardian state,” as President al-Sharaa indicated in his speech, a transition that carries positive signs if it is transformed from a visual symbolism into a realistic institutional practice, based on the rule of rights and dignity.
Syrian Future Movement views the new design with its inspired symbols (the golden osprey and the liberation of the stars from the flag) as a vocabulary open to political interpretation, and calls for a critical and conscious reading of these symbols, ensuring that they are used as a means of interaction and not as a tool of moral monopoly.
Syrian Future Movement registers its reservation on the declaration of visual identity without going through the necessary constitutional stages, and emphasizes that the declaration contradicts the provisions of the interim constitutional declaration issued by the Constituent Assembly last March, which requires that sovereign symbols of the state be approved by the new parliament after its formation, as part of the democratic transitional guarantees.
Syrian Future Movement appreciates the declared official intentions and calls for addressing this constitutional overlap by freezing the adoption of the visual identity as an official symbol until it is presented before the upcoming parliament, and opening a participatory public dialogue that allows civil society and cultural and artistic elites to participate in the crystallization of the inclusive national symbol.
Syrian Future Movement finds that the moderate position is closest to the common good. He does not reject the symbol in terms of form, nor does he accept its adoption in terms of procedure, and emphasizes that the optimal path is to combine respect for symbolism with constitutional discipline.