The General Secretariat for Political Affairs.. Analysis and Approach

Introduction:

Amid the phase of radical transformations that Syria is undergoing, the decision by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates to establish the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” has sparked a deep discussion about its potential role in restructuring official institutions and shaping the political landscape in a way that serves national interests.

Although this decision may raise legal and administrative questions, it carries significant indications of the state’s desire to keep pace with the new phase by enhancing and organizing political work. This article aims to analyze the decision from a scientific and political perspective, examining its positive dimensions, the challenges it may face, and offering insights that contribute to establishing a path that reflects the Syrian people’s aspirations for stability and progress.

 

Analysis:

Analyzing this development requires examining various political, legal, and administrative dimensions, with a focus on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ traditional role compared to the new responsibilities assigned to the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs.” This analysis can be approached from five key perspectives:

First: The Political and Legal Context of the Decision

The Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the establishment of the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” under Decree No. (53), justifying its creation by the necessity of “achieving the supreme national interest” and “developing the structure of political work.” This comes in the wake of the dissolution of the Ba’ath Party and the National Progressive Front parties in January 2025.

This decision is part of Syria’s political restructuring following the institutional vacuum left by the dismantling of traditional parties, which had formed the backbone of the regime for decades. The significance of this move lies in the state’s attempt to compensate for the institutional gap left by the dissolution while redirecting the previous parties’ resources and assets to serve the objectives of the new political framework.

 

Second: The tasks assigned to the Secretariat between supervision and redeployment, where the decision defined three main tasks for it:

1. Supervising internal political activities, including organizing political events in accordance with the law. This raises questions about the independence of these activities and the nature of the “organization” intended. This role may also be interpreted as a mechanism for monitoring and directing political work to ensure its alignment with the state’s official line rather than fostering pluralism.
2. Participating in the formulation of public policies, granting the Secretariat a fundamental advisory role in policy-making. This reflects an attempt to integrate previous political expertise (by redeploying the assets of dissolved parties) within the new structure. However, this raises concerns about the limits of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ jurisdiction over internal affairs, which are typically under the purview of the Ministry of Interior or independent political bodies.
3. Redeploying the assets of the Ba’ath Party and the National Front, which may indicate converting the material and human resources of dissolved parties into tools serving national objectives. This measure could aim to prevent the complete collapse of the old political structure while maintaining certain elements under state control.

It is notable that, according to international norms, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for managing the state’s external relations, organizing expatriate affairs, and contributing to foreign policy formulation. In contrast, internal political affairs are usually handled by other ministries or entities, such as the Ministry of Interior or institutions concerned with internal political planning.

 

Third: The institutional and financial framework of the Secretariat, as it has an independent budget within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs while remaining subject to specialized oversight. This financial independence is seen as a step to ensure its operational flexibility, but it may also raise questions about transparency and accountability, especially given the lack of details regarding the mentioned oversight mechanism. Additionally, its affiliation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs raises concerns about the overlap of responsibilities between internal and external affairs, which is uncommon in traditional political systems.

 

Fourth: The philosophical-political analysis between legitimacy and hegemony. From the perspective of political philosophy, this decision can be interpreted through Gramsci’s theory of “hegemony,” where the state seeks to reproduce its dominance through new institutional mechanisms after the collapse of old structures. The formation of the Secretariat may represent an attempt to create a new consensus between political elites and society, using the resources of dissolved parties as a tool to ensure stability. However, the absence of any reference to the participation of civil society or new parties suggests the continuation of an authoritarian model, with a change in form rather than substance.

 

Fifth: Challenges and potential criticisms, which include:

1. Constitutional legitimacy: Does the Syrian constitutional framework allow the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish a body concerned with internal affairs? The absence of an explicit constitutional provision may weaken the legitimacy of this decision.
2. Institutional overlap: The Secretariat’s role may conflict with the responsibilities of other ministries (such as the Ministry of Interior or political affairs), leading to jurisdictional disputes. The issue of overlapping powers is evident, as the establishment of the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs raises questions about its compatibility with existing laws. If current regulations do not grant the Ministry of Foreign Affairs authority over internal political affairs, this decision could be seen as an overreach, inviting legal and administrative criticism.
3. Fears of new authoritarianism: The redeployment of the Ba’ath Party’s assets may result in the re-emergence of the same political elites under new labels while maintaining state dominance over political life.

The formation of the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” appears to reflect an attempt by the leadership to manage a complex transitional phase through institutional restructuring that integrates old resources with new structures.

However, the key question remains: Can this step achieve a genuine democratic transformation, or is it merely a reconfiguration of power under a new institutional guise?

Ultimately, the success of the Secretariat will depend on its transparency, true independence, and ability to break away from the legacy of past authoritarianism.

 

A Spotlight on the Positives

The decision to establish the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” within the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates can be seen as having certain positive aspects that could enhance the state’s political and administrative functions—if implemented thoughtfully.

In the political context, the initiative appears to address an institutional vacuum and reinforce stability. The formation of the Secretariat comes at a critical transitional stage following the dissolution of the Ba’ath Party and the National Progressive Front, which left a gap in the political and institutional structure.

From a positive perspective, this decision can be viewed as an institutional mechanism to contain potential unrest resulting from the disintegration of traditional parties. By redeploying their human and material resources to serve national objectives, the decision aims to prevent these resources from becoming sources of chaos or internal conflicts. Additionally, it offers a model for managing political change without a complete systemic collapse, which could contribute to maintaining relative stability during the transition period.

 

In the Context of Its Tasks: The Importance of Utilizing Previous Expertise and Enhancing Government Coordination

1. Supervising political activities: While potential criticisms regarding restrictions on freedoms exist, organizing political events through institutional channels could help prevent political fragmentation and establish a clear legal framework for public activities, especially in the absence of strong opposition parties.
2. Redeploying the assets of dissolved parties: This measure presents an opportunity to transform material and human resources (such as offices, cadres, and archives) from narrow partisan tools into assets serving the public good. This could reduce waste and reinvest in the state’s political infrastructure.
3. Participating in policy formulation: Granting the Secretariat an advisory role could help integrate previous expertise (such as former Ba’ath Party cadres) with new perspectives. If managed transparently, this process could enhance the use of historical knowledge in decision-making.

 

In the Context of the Institutional Framework: Flexibility in Finance and Administration

The Secretariat enjoys an independent budget within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which provides it with flexibility in funding political projects without complex bureaucracy, especially if this budget is linked to specific strategic objectives. Furthermore, its submission to specialized oversight (even though the details are absent) suggests an attempt to balance independence with accountability, which is a positive aspect if implemented seriously.

In the Context of Philosophical Analysis: Reproducing Legitimacy through Institutions

From the perspective of political philosophy, the decision can be seen as part of a “institutional renewal” strategy to grant new legitimacy to the political system. This is done by adopting the discourse of “modernization” and “efficiency” mentioned in the decision text.

This approach could help gain support from groups that previously doubted the performance of traditional parties, especially if accompanied by actual reforms. Additionally, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs overseeing internal political affairs could reflect an attempt to unify the strategic vision between domestic and foreign policy, which is crucial in light of the regional crises facing Syria.

Regarding the Opportunities for Gradual Transformation

Despite concerns about the persistence of the authoritarian model, the creation of the Secretariat could form the nucleus of a permanent political institution capable of further development, especially if the door is gradually opened for the participation of new actors (independents, civil society) in its activities.

Moreover, the reference to “modernization” in the decision text could be seen as an indirect acknowledgment of the need for reform, which creates an opportunity for internal pressure towards further political openness in the future.

In a Comprehensive Summary

The decision seems to carry potential positives related to:

1. Institutional stability, by filling the gap left by the dissolution of old parties.
2. Utilizing resources, through the redeployment of assets from dissolved parties to serve national objectives.
3. Discourse renewal, by adopting concepts such as “modernization” and “efficiency,” which could form the basis for new legitimacy.
4. Adaptation to changes, as a proactive step to manage both internal and external political transitions.

However, these positive points remain dependent on how the decision is implemented and whether it aligns with existing laws and national directions. Furthermore, any positivity is directly tied to the commitment to transparency, justice, and the public interest in managing this General Secretariat.

Situation Assessment

Initially, we, at the Syrian Future Movement, after internal discussions and deliberations led by Dr. Zahir Baadrani, the head of the movement, welcome the decision as a step toward strengthening organized political work in Syria, especially during this transitional phase that requires the restructuring of official institutions.

However, we emphasize the necessity of implementing this decision in a manner that ensures respect for existing laws and avoids any overlap of powers between different institutions. We also stress the importance of transparency in managing the General Secretariat and its tasks.

To this end, we propose establishing clear coordination mechanisms between the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” and other relevant bodies responsible for internal affairs, such as the Ministry of Interior and legislative bodies, to ensure the integration of political work.

Additionally, we recommend organizing training programs and workshops to develop political competencies within the General Secretariat, ensuring the highest standards of efficiency in formulating public policies.

We also stress the importance of involving civil society organizations in policy-making to ensure the representation of all national groups and to enhance political dialogue.

Furthermore, we advocate for the formation of an independent committee to oversee the redeployment of Ba’ath Party assets and those of the National Progressive Front, ensuring these resources are used to serve the national interest. At the same time, the General Secretariat’s budget should be subject to oversight by relevant supervisory bodies, with periodic reports published on how financial resources are utilized.

 

Contribution to Strengthening the Positive Aspects of the Decision

Therefore, we in the Syrian Future Movement can contribute, along with other political entities, to consolidating the positive points of this decision by:

1. Proposing legislative amendments to align the powers of the General Secretariat with the legal framework of the state.
2. Launching political initiatives: Given our previous experience in organizing seminars and conferences that bring together various national parties, we propose utilizing this experience to discuss the role of the General Secretariat in enhancing political work. Specifically, we suggest creating a dialogue platform between the Secretariat, new parties, and civil society to ensure that its policies reflect diverse aspirations rather than a singular agenda.
3. Promoting national dialogue: By supporting the efforts of the General Secretariat in organizing domestic political events through our diverse networks, we aim to strengthen national unity and address shared challenges. We propose a draft law to amend the Secretariat’s powers, allocating a portion of its resources to support the establishment of new political parties as part of promoting pluralism.
4. Collaborating with international bodies: We aim to build partnerships with international organizations to support the Secretariat’s efforts in developing political work.
5. Redeploying with national standards: We propose transforming the assets of dissolved parties (such as offices and archives) into research or academic centers that contribute to intellectual and political production, rather than solely serving the Secretariat. Additionally, we encourage former Ba’ath Party cadres to engage in public work through equal opportunity mechanisms rather than relying on old loyalties.
6. Adapting international experiences: We suggest examining comparative models from countries that underwent political transformations (such as post-apartheid South Africa), where transitional institutions were employed to integrate the old with the new without exclusion.

Conclusion

We, in the Syrian Future Movement, have closely monitored the Syrian stance on this decision. Through our vision, which we strive to make balanced—not meaning passive neutrality but active participation in shaping the political landscape—we have decided to support aspects of the decision that promote stability and resource utilization. At the same time, we critique the gaps that could lead to authoritarianism or corruption and offer practical alternatives to transform this decision from a tool of dominance into an opportunity for gradual reform. With this approach, our position becomes an active contributor to transforming the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” from a fragile transitional institution into a bridge toward a more open political system, should we succeed in our path—whether by convincing the leadership or by rallying various political and civil forces to support it. Therefore, we recommend the following:

1. Peaceful pressure by using legal channels (the parliament, if available, or public statements) to demand amendments to the Secretariat’s structure.
2. Building alliances and coordinating with other parties and civil society organizations to form a pressure bloc that supports reform without direct confrontation with the leadership and the new system.
3. Public awareness through organizing campaigns to explain to the public the pros and cons of the decision and encourage active participation in policy-making.
4. Preparing an alternative vision for a democratic political institution managed in a decentralized manner, as part of the outcome of dialogue between political forces, civil society, and the General Secretariat.

In conclusion, amid the political transformations taking place in Syria, the decision to establish the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stands out as a step that contains contradictions between the old and the new, between the desire for stability and suspicions of authoritarianism. On one hand, this decision can be read as an institutional response to fill the gap left by the disintegration of traditional parties and to utilize their resources for a transitional phase fraught with challenges. On the other hand, the question remains: Is this step merely a repositioning of power under new labels, or is it a seed for genuine reform that redefines the relationship between the state and society?

The most important lesson here is that the success of any transitional institution—such as the “Secretariat”—does not depend solely on its legal framework or official discourse, but on its ability to embody the values of transparency, participation, and accountability. A state that wishes to build new legitimacy must open the doors of dialogue to diverse voices and shift from a model of unilateral dominance to a mosaic of pluralism. If it merely recycles the elites and resources under the banner of modernization, it will remain trapped in a vicious cycle of political and social crises.

Thus, we in the Syrian Future Movement view the “General Secretariat for Political Affairs” as not just an administrative structure but as a test of the political system’s will to address the legacy of the past and the stakes of the future. It can either become a bridge to a more open system that involves citizens in decision-making or turn into mere cover for the continuation of the authoritarian model with more sophisticated tools. The choice between these two paths will be determined not only by what the Secretariat does but also by the peaceful pressure and constructive initiatives from society to transform political decisions from top-down to interactive.

 

scientific Office

Jomaa Mohammad Laheep

Research and Studies Department

Articles

Syrian Future Movement