Introduction:
In the context of Syria’s transitional phase, characterized by the need to rebuild administrative institutions and enhance the efficiency of public service delivery, the Minister of Local Administration and Environment, Muhammad Anjarani, issued Ministerial Decree No. 13 of 2026. This decree delegates a broad range of ministerial powers to governors (and, to a lesser extent, to heads of city councils in provincial capitals).
This decree is based on Local Administration Law No. 107 of 2011 and its amendments. According to official statements, its aim is to strengthen service decentralization, expedite administrative procedures, improve institutional performance, and achieve balanced development across the provinces.
The delegation of powers includes administrative (such as forming executive offices and distributing tasks), financial (approving investment and current expenditure contracts, and sales, lease, and investment contracts), environmental (procedures related to environmental protection), and personnel (appointments, transfers, leaves, compensation, and vacating administrative housing).
This analysis will assess the decision from a legal and political perspective, focusing on its advantages, disadvantages, challenges, and proposed solutions, based on the Syrian transitional context and comparative international experiences.
The Legal Framework of the Decision:
The decision is legally based on Article 107 of the 2011 Local Administration Law, which regulates local administrative units and allows for the delegation of powers to enhance efficiency.
It is also linked to the Contracts Law and the Basic Civil Service Law, granting governors powers up to specific financial limits (such as 15 billion Syrian pounds for contracts in some cases, depending on the administrative classification).
This framework reflects an attempt to activate administrative decentralization without fundamentally amending the basic laws, which aligns with the Transitional Constitutional Declaration that emphasizes balanced development.
However, the decision remains a temporary executive mandate, not bound by permanent legislative changes, making it susceptible to reversal or amendment at any time.
Advantages and Opportunities:
This decision holds numerous positive implications in the Syrian context, where the administrative system suffers from a concentration of power in Damascus, leading to delays in service delivery and reconstruction. Key advantages include:
Accelerating administrative procedures by empowering governors to approve contracts and environmental permits. This can reduce centralized bureaucracy, enabling a faster response to the needs of the governorates, particularly in the areas of investment and development.
Promoting balanced development, as the decision supports the integration of efforts among government entities, building upon previous preparatory meetings with governors to discuss strategic plans. This could lead to a better allocation of resources and achieve local growth.
Benefiting from international experiences, as the minister indicated. The decision is based on an analysis of the local situation and draws inspiration from leading models, such as the experiences of Tunisia after 2011 or Iraqi Kurdistan, where decentralization has contributed to improved public services.
These aspects make the decision a constructive step towards building an effective civil state, especially during a transitional phase that requires restoring citizens’ trust in institutions.
Disadvantages and Challenges:
Despite its advantages, the decision raises fundamental legal and political challenges, particularly within Syria’s historical context of weak oversight and widespread nepotism. The most prominent disadvantages include:
The risk of corruption and nepotism. Delegating broad financial powers (such as contracts worth billions of Syrian pounds) to centrally appointed governors without clear oversight mechanisms could open the door to exploitation.
The absence of genuine local democracy. Governors are not elected but appointed by the central authority, rendering the delegation of power merely a formality of “administrative decentralization” that does not reflect true popular representation.
Weak oversight and accountability. The decision does not specify mechanisms for evaluation or complaints, which could lead to performance disparities between governorates, especially given the current weakness of oversight institutions.
These challenges reflect legitimate concerns about a return to centralized management patterns under the guise of decentralization, particularly during a transitional phase that demands high transparency.
Solutions and Recommendations:
To transform this decision into a genuine opportunity, the Syrian Future Movement proposes the following steps:
- Strengthening Oversight: Issuing supplementary decrees to establish independent oversight committees at the governorate level, including representatives from civil society and local councils, with transparent electronic complaint mechanisms.
- Training and Capacity Building: Implementing training programs for governors and local staff, in cooperation with international organizations such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), to ensure the efficient and impartial use of powers.
- Legislative Reform: Advocating for amending Law 107/2011 to include the election of governors or effective local councils, drawing inspiration from the Moroccan or Jordanian models in promoting local democracy.
- Periodic Evaluation: Conducting annual impact assessment studies of the decision, with the results published publicly to enhance public trust.
Conclusion:
The decision to delegate authority to governors is a positive step towards administrative decentralization, but it requires complementary reforms to avoid potential challenges.
We in the Syrian Future Movement believe that the success of such initiatives depends on transparency and popular participation, contributing to building a democratic civil state that promotes justice and balanced development. Therefore, we call upon all relevant parties to engage in a comprehensive national dialogue to develop this framework, drawing lessons from successful transitional experiences.
