Transitional justice is one of the most important pillars for building states emerging from tyranny and conflict, as it represents the bridge that societies cross from a phase of revenge and division to one of law, reconciliation, and stability. A new Syria cannot recover without fair accountability for all those who committed crimes against Syrians, participated in them, incited them, or justified them, while preserving the rights of victims, uncovering the truth, and ensuring that the tragedy is not repeated.
From this perspective, Article 49 of the Constitutional Declaration provides a general framework for this process by stipulating the establishment of a Transitional Justice Commission, exempting war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of the former regime from the principle of non-retroactivity of laws, and criminalizing the glorification of the Assad regime, the denial of its crimes, or their minimization or justification.
The Syrian Future Movement finds no fundamental problem with these principles; rather, it believes they align with the aspirations of Syrians to achieve justice, provide redress for victims, and prevent the return of tyranny in its various forms.
However, the real problem lies not in Article 49 itself, but in the legal and institutional environment within which it is intended to be implemented.
To this day, the legislative authority remains absent from exercising its natural role. No comprehensive law has been issued specifying how Article 49 should be implemented, nor have precise legal definitions been provided for the terms it contains, nor have procedural safeguards been established to prevent its misuse. This is despite the fact that the Syrian Future Movement has repeatedly warned of the dangers of the continued delay in convening the People’s Assembly, because the absence of a legislative authority not only means a delay in enacting laws, but also means that constitutional principles remain suspended between text and interpretation.
In light of this vacuum, calls have emerged for popular campaigns demanding the activation of Article 49, under the banner of “criminalizing Assadism.” These calls deserve serious consideration.
If the goal is to prevent the glorification of the despotic regime and to hold those responsible for its crimes accountable, then this is a legitimate objective consistent with transitional justice.
However, if these campaigns become a substitute for the law, or a means of pressuring for the application of a constitutional provision before a law exists to define its standards and limits, then we are facing a constitutional and legal dilemma whose seriousness cannot be underestimated.
What is legally defined as “Assadism”?
Is it ideological affiliation?
Or former party membership?
Or holding a public office?
Or simply expressing an opinion?
Or participating in legally defined crimes?
Does criminalization encompass everyone who worked in the institutions of the former state, or is it limited to those whose individual responsibility for the crimes has been proven?
Where do the boundaries of criminalization begin, and where do they end?
These questions cannot be answered by media campaigns, social media platforms, or public sentiment; only the law can provide the answers.
The most dangerous thing that countries may face in their transitional phases is the use of broad and unregulated concepts, because over time these concepts become tools open to interpretation according to the balance of political power, not according to the standards of justice.
The state for which the Syrians revolted is not a state of individuals, but a state of institutions; not a state of impressions, but a state of legal texts; not a state of general accusations, but a state of individual criminal responsibility.
Therefore, the Syrian Future Movement believes that activating Article 49 does not begin with organizing sit-ins or launching campaigns, but rather with completing the state institutions, foremost among them the legislative authority, to issue a clear law on transitional justice. This law should define what constitutes a crime, establish judicial safeguards, and prevent broad interpretations or selective application.
Furthermore, the Syrian Future Movement believes that transitional justice must not become a tool for excluding political opponents or a means of reshaping public life outside constitutional and legal frameworks, because this merely reproduces tyranny in a different form, even if the slogans change.
Therefore, we call for the legislative authority to expedite its duties and enact a comprehensive transitional justice law following a broad national dialogue involving judges, lawyers, constitutional law experts, human rights organizations, and representatives of victims. This is essential so that the law reflects the will of all Syrians, not just the will of a temporary phase or a particular faction.
Syria today needs not more slogans, but strong institutions, robust legislation, and an independent judiciary. Justice is not achieved through mere wishes, but through the law.
We in the Syrian Future Movement believe that holding criminals accountable is a non-negotiable national and moral duty. However, we equally believe that protecting justice from politicization is an equally important duty, and that building a state begins with respecting institutions, activating the legislative authority, and establishing the rule of law.
There can be no justice without law, no law without a legislative authority, and no modern state without independent institutions capable of protecting rights and freedoms, free from selectivity, broad criminalization, or the misapplication of legal texts beyond their constitutional intent.
Therefore, the call we raise today is neither for nor against Article 49, nor is it a rejection of holding the former regime accountable. Rather, it is a call for all of this to be done through the rule of law, not through a legislative vacuum. Justice not governed by law can, over time, transform into a new injustice, something the Syrian people have paid a heavy price to escape.
The question Syrians must ask themselves today is not: Do we support the campaign to “criminalize Assadism” or not?
The real question is: Which constitutional body is authorized to define crimes, establish the boundaries of criminalization, enact penalties, and provide legal safeguards?
The answer is unequivocal: the legislative authority.
The People’s Assembly (or Parliament) is not a mere formality that can be postponed or bypassed. It is the body entrusted by the constitution with the task of enacting laws and translating constitutional principles into binding, clear, and specific legal texts that do not allow for interpretation or broad explanation.
The legislative authority, by pushing for popular campaigns to implement Article 49, raises a constitutional and political dilemma that cannot be ignored. Legislation is not made in the streets, nor is it written through media campaigns, nor is it governed by the logic of popular pressure.
Rather, it is formulated within the legislative institution, after extensive legal and constitutional discussions, and by listening to the opinions of experts, representatives of victims, human rights organizations, and political and social forces, so that the law emerges reflecting the collective national will, not the enthusiasm of the moment or street pressure.
Leaving this legislative vacuum open, and then attempting to fill it with popular campaigns, carries significant risks, as it could lead to social tensions, political polarization, and backlash at a time when Syria needs calm and the rebuilding of trust between the state and society.
It also opens the door to an uncontrolled expansion in the interpretation of the concept of “Assadism,” making it applicable outside the framework intended by the Constitutional Declaration. This could affect individuals simply because of past affiliations, public office, or political stances, instead of criminalizing such acts only when individual criminal responsibility is proven according to the law.
Therefore, we in the Syrian Future Movement believe that the national priority today is not launching more campaigns, but rather expediting the activation of the legislative authority. The People’s Assembly is the body that must issue the Transitional Justice Law, the law implementing Article 49, and the law criminalizing the glorification of the former regime, within a comprehensive legal framework that protects the rights of victims, while simultaneously protecting the state from abuse, society from division, and the judiciary from political and popular pressure.
Therefore, our call today is directed first and foremost to the competent authority: Activate the People’s Assembly, restore the credibility of the legislative authority, and let it carry out its constitutional duty of enacting the laws that Syrians need, instead of leaving a legislative vacuum that popular campaigns are trying to fill, no matter how good their intentions may be.Hence, the continued obstruction of
