The Syrian Parliament: Its Members, Role, and Importance

Introduction:

A Syrian parliament member is a popular representative who is elected or appointed to a legislative body that forms part of the political system of a country. Their primary role is to participate in the law-making process, oversee government performance, and represent the interests of voters.

The parliament functions as an independent or semi-independent legislative authority in many political systems, whether constitutional monarchy, parliamentary republic, or presidential system.

The titles of members vary between countries; in some, they are called “deputies” or “representatives,” while in others, they are referred to as “sheikhs” or “members of the People’s Assembly.”

The Historical Evolution of Parliamentary Members’ Roles:

The roots of parliaments trace back to early democratic experiments, such as the “Ekklesia” in ancient Athens (5th century BC), where male citizens gathered to discuss laws.

In the Middle Ages, early forms of representative assemblies appeared in Europe, such as the “English Parliament” (1265), which included nobles, clergy, and city representatives. Its aim was to balance the power of the king with that of society.

In Islamic countries, the parliamentary model can be seen in the Council of “Ahl al-Hall wal-Aqd,” who would consult with the caliph on legal, political, and social matters.

With the development of the modern state after the French (1789) and American (1776) revolutions, the parliament became a constitutional institution that solidified the principle of the separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial).

In the 19th century, the powers of parliaments expanded with the introduction of universal suffrage and the spread of representative democracy, which included legislative and financial oversight roles, as well as political monitoring of governments.

The general tasks of parliamentary members are reflected in:

1. Legislation: Members participate in drafting, discussing, and voting on laws, either through individual initiatives or political parties.
2. Oversight: Parliament exercises oversight over the government by questioning ministers, making motions of censure, and discussing budgets.
3. Representation: Members convey the demands of their local constituents to the national level, serving as a link between society and the state.
4. Parliamentary Diplomacy: Some members engage in international committees to promote cooperation between countries.
5. Committee Work: Members discuss the technical details of laws in specialized committees (such as education, health, or economy).

The Parliament in Syria:

During the Ottoman era, Syria did not have a parliamentary institution in the modern sense, but it did witness local councils with limited powers. However, after the French Mandate (1920–1946), the “Syrian Representative Council” was established as a legislative body with symbolic powers.

After independence (1946), multi-party parliamentary elections were held, but frequent military coups (especially in 1963) restricted the parliament’s role. With the rise of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party to power, the parliament was transformed into the “People’s Assembly” (1971), which became a tool to legitimize the decisions of the executive authority, with the one-party system dominating the seats.

In the 2012 constitution (amended after popular protests), a multi-party system was stipulated, but the political reality remained dominated by the “National Progressive Front” coalition led by the Ba’ath Party. Although, in theory, the People’s Assembly has legislative powers, actual decision-making remains concentrated in the hands of the executive authority (the presidency, government, and security apparatuses).

The main tasks of Syrian members included:

1. Voting on laws proposed by the government.
2. Discussing public policies without real power to amend them.
3. Representing geographical areas without sufficient guarantees for the independence of opinion.

The Syrian parliament faced criticism due to its limited influence during the reigns of both the father and son Assad, as well as for its lack of independence from the executive authority and weak political representation. The Syrian revolution (since 2011) further complicated the situation, with part of the country falling outside the control of the ousted regime, which diminished the legitimacy of the legislative institution.

In democratic systems, the parliament symbolizes political pluralism and acts as a link between the state and the citizens. However, in the Assad-era Syria, despite constitutional amendments, its role remained marginal under a centralized system based on a one-party ideology.

The Importance of the Role of a Parliamentary Member, General Roles, and the Syrian Specificity After Liberation from the Assad Regime:

A parliamentary member is considered the cornerstone in democratic systems, as they embody the principle of popular representation and contribute to achieving a balance between the state’s powers. Their importance is reflected in:

1. Legislating policies: Ensuring fair laws that meet the needs of society.
2. Effective oversight on the government: Preventing tyranny or corruption through the accountability of ministers and monitoring public spending.
3. Enhancing political legitimacy: Representing various social groups, including minorities and marginalized communities.
4. Resolving conflicts through dialogue: The parliament serves as a platform for settling political disagreements through peaceful means.

In transitional systems (such as countries emerging from wars or authoritarian regimes), the role of parliamentary members becomes more vital for building new institutions and drafting a social contract that ends the causes of conflict.

In post-Assad Syria, the parliament can become a key tool for rebuilding the state through:

1. Transitioning from centralization to pluralism: By dismantling the one-party structure and representing all political, ethnic, and religious components.
2. Participating in drafting a new constitution: Ensuring the separation of powers, human rights, and guarantees for democratic transition.
3. Promoting national reconciliation: Through legislating transitional justice laws, compensating victims of the regime and war.
4. Restructuring the economy: Through legislation to combat corruption and attract investments for reconstruction.
5. Oversight of security agencies: Ensuring they are subject to civilian authority and preventing the return of authoritarianism.

Positives and Negatives:

The positives of having parliamentary members generally include broad representation of citizens in decision-making, legislative flexibility through the amendment of laws in response to societal developments, parliamentary oversight that limits the secrecy of executive decisions, and, last but not least, directing budgets towards infrastructure projects in electoral districts.

The negatives of parliamentary members generally include party divisions, where legislation may be delayed due to ideological conflicts, the exploitation of the position for personal or factional interests, legislative sluggishness caused by complicated parliamentary procedures that delay the approval of urgent laws, and dependency on the executive authority. In some systems, the parliament becomes a “rubber stamp” for government decisions.

Positives and Negatives of Members in Syria Currently and Traditionally:

Positives: A. Formal geographical representation: With members from most provinces.

1. A limited platform for discussing public service issues (such as electricity, water, and similar matters).
2. Opportunity for a participatory parliament that reflects the diversity of Syrian society.
3. Passing laws that achieve transitional justice and restore the rights of displaced individuals.
4. Regional and international cooperation to support reformative legislation.

Negatives (What May or May Not Be):

Dominance of the power structure over the legislative decision: Such as the appointment of one-third of the members by the presidency. While a majority is required for approval, there is a potential for the “blocking third” to be approved in the future or become a norm.

1. Lack of independence: Most members are dependent on the authority’s line.
2. Limited female participation and fair representation of minorities.
3. Risk of continued security influence or the return of figures from the previous regime under a democratic guise.
4. Sharp societal divisions may be reflected in the parliament, hindering the legislative process.
5. Lack of political experience among the new elites in managing parliament.
6. External interventions to impose agendas that serve international interests at the expense of sovereignty.

A parliamentary member in post-Assad Syria could be a symbol of liberation from tyranny and a partner in building a state of citizenship. However, to fulfill this role, certain essential conditions are required, such as guaranteeing free elections, judicial independence, and genuine political will for reform.

On the other hand, neglecting to restructure the political system or allowing corruption to persist could turn the new parliament into a recycled version of the past, perpetuating crises instead of solving them.

Conclusion:

The parliament, consisting of members who are considered the bearers of the parliament (with their positives and negatives), even in its limited Syrian context, represents an institutional framework that can be developed to enhance political participation and solidify the principles of accountability. To achieve this, it is possible to leverage the available positives (such as the existence of a legislative structure and the experiences of some members) and overcome the negatives (such as weak independence and the lack of genuine representation) through two gradual phases:

First: Post-constitutional declaration phase (Transitional Phase):

1. Enhancing legislative independence: By amending the laws governing the parliament’s work to enable it to effectively oversee the government, such as activating the right to question and investigate the performance of ministries, and separating the administrative and financial structure of the parliament from the executive authority to ensure that the latter does not interfere with its agenda.
2. Building institutional capacities: By organizing training programs for parliament members on legislative drafting, financial oversight, and political dialogue mechanisms, in partnership with neutral international organizations.
3. Establishing permanent specialized technical committees: Such as strategic planning and human rights, supported by independent experts.
4. Enhancing participatory dialogue: By opening communication channels with civil society organizations and local elites to discuss proposed laws before voting on them, even under current political constraints.
5. Adopting representation quotas (such as youth and women) in the first phase for key committees, to ensure diversity of opinions.

Second: Post-popular elections phase (Foundational Phase):

1. Ensuring election integrity: By forming an independent electoral commission to oversee the entire process, with international monitoring to enhance trust. This includes adopting an electoral law based on proportional representation that facilitates the participation of new parties without burdensome conditions.
2. Activating parliamentary oversight: By granting the parliament the power to approve and amend the public budget, review major government contracts, and publish oversight reports publicly. Additionally, formalizing the parliament’s right to withdraw confidence from the government or ministers through clear mechanisms.
3. Connecting the parliament with citizens: Through broadcasting parliamentary sessions via direct media, creating online platforms to receive citizens’ proposals, and organizing regular listening sessions in provinces to ensure members engage with the needs of marginalized regions.
4. Strategic international cooperation: By joining international parliamentary networks (such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union) to exchange expertise on development legislation and crisis management.
5. Developing the Syrian parliament cannot be separated from the broader process of comprehensive political reform, which requires both internal will and smart international support.

We hope and work, within the Syrian Future Movement, that it will represent the free will of the Syrian people, becoming a point of reference for true reconciliation between the people and the real reformer of the social fabric that was destroyed by the years of previous wars. The events on the coast are a recent reminder. We also see the parliament as the natural place for political and civil entities to express their vision and contribute to overcoming the various crises the country is facing. It should operate on the principle of pluralism, collaborating with other entities hand in hand to contribute to Syria’s reconstruction.

Thus, our focus is on the parliament, and we aim for fair competition to reach it. What matters to us is that the parliament remains nationally independent and not subjugated, and when we seek to enter, we will do so strong and trustworthy.

In the transitional phase, we propose turning the parliament into a platform for national dialogue that reflects the pluralism of Syrian society, even if partially. In the foundational phase, it should become a cornerstone for a new social contract based on true representative legitimacy and a decisive separation of powers.

We also see that the greatest challenge lies in transforming these recommendations from ink on paper into daily practice through gradual but steady reforms, redefining the role of parliamentary members from “mere endorsers” to “key actors” in shaping the future.

Dr. Zaher Baadarani

Presidency office

Article

Syrian Future Movement