The Syrian People\u2019s Assembly convened on July 12, 2026, for its first session, to reopen one of the most sensitive political issues of the transitional phase: the Political Parties Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After more than six decades of the Ba’ath Party’s monopoly on political life since 1963, and fifty-four years of Assad family rule that entrenched the party’s fusion with the state, Syria finds itself today facing a historic opportunity to re-establish political life on new foundations, based on participation instead of monopoly, and on peaceful competition instead of exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the transition from a one-party system to a pluralistic system is not merely a legislative procedure involving the enactment of a new law; it is a profound transformation that touches the philosophy of the state, the nature of society, the political culture, and the mechanisms of power production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, fundamental questions arise that cannot be ignored: What is a political party?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why do modern states need political parties?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is Syrian society today ready for a genuine party system?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And how can the mistakes of the past be avoided, and how can pluralism be prevented from becoming a new tool for division?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Answering these questions necessitates examining the Syrian experience within its historical context and drawing upon comparative experiences to arrive at a realistic vision that balances the imperatives of stability with the requirements of democratic transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is impossible to discuss a law governing political parties or political pluralism before defining what constitutes a political party itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In constitutional law, a political party is defined as a permanent national organization based on a declared political program, aiming to attain power or participate in decision-making through peaceful and constitutional means, while adhering to the provisions of the constitution, the rule of law, and respecting the will of the voters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The role of political parties is not limited to contesting elections or competing for power. They perform deeper functions in the political structure of the state. They are the training ground for leaders, the platform for developing public programs, and the bridge that conveys the demands of society to state institutions. They also exercise oversight over the performance of the executive branch, contribute to expanding popular participation, and transform political differences into peaceful competition within institutions, rather than resorting to street protests or violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For this reason, political parties have become a cornerstone of modern democratic systems, providing society with organized channels to express its differences and transforming social and intellectual diversity into a source of strength and creativity, rather than a cause of conflict and division.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the success of political parties depends not only on their legal existence but also on a political, judicial, and media environment that allows them to operate freely, guarantees equal opportunities for all, and simultaneously prevents the monopolization of power or the use of parties as fronts for narrow interests or projects outside the framework of the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The political transition in countries emerging from conflict raises a crucial philosophical and political question: Should the state be built first, and then political party life launched, or do political parties create the state and grant it legitimacy?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Political schools of thought are divided on this issue. Some believe that political parties are the lifeblood of democracy, and that their absence means the absence of popular participation and oversight of power. Others argue that political pluralism in a state whose institutions are still fragile can become a factor of division rather than a factor of stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
International experience suggests that the relationship between the state and political parties is not one of conflict or temporal priority, but rather one of mutual complementarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A strong state needs strong and responsible political parties, and parties cannot flourish in a state that is collapsing or incapable of enforcing the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, the real challenge facing Syria does not lie in choosing between the state and political parties, but in building both in a balanced way, so that state institutions progress in parallel with the growth of political life. This prevents the state from becoming a tool in the hands of a single party, and prevents political parties from becoming entities that compete at the expense of national unity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Political parties are not a phenomenon imported into Syrian society, as is sometimes portrayed. Syria possesses one of the oldest party traditions in the Arab region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The outlines of organized political action began to emerge in the late Ottoman era through secret Arab societies that called for reform, and then developed more clearly during the French Mandate period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Among the most prominent of these organizations was the Young Arab Society, which contributed to consolidating Arab nationalist thought and formed one of the intellectual tributaries of the Syrian national movement, before political forces later emerged from it that played a prominent role in the independence era.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The National Bloc also emerged as the most important political framework in confronting the French Mandate. It was able to lead the national struggle for decades and unite figures from various cities and political currents around the goal of independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After achieving independence in 1946, numerous parties and movements branched out from it, leading Syria to embark on one of the most vibrant parliamentary experiments in the Arab world at that time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite the political dynamism that Syria witnessed during the early decades of independence, the democratic experiment remained structurally fragile due to fierce competition between political forces and the frequent intervention of the military establishment in public life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From Husni al-Za’im’s coup in 1949, through the coups of Sami al-Hinnawi and Adib al-Shishakli, Syria entered a phase in which military force became a decisive factor in the transfer of power, at the expense of popular will and the ballot box.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These coups were not a result of the existence of political parties per se, but rather an expression of the imbalance between the military establishment and civilian institutions\u2014a crucial historical lesson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Democracy does not collapse due to the proliferation of parties, but rather when armed force becomes a substitute for constitutional legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The March 8, 1963 coup marked a major turning point in Syrian political history, after the military wing of the Ba’ath Party seized power, ushering in a new era in which Syria transitioned from partisan competition to a monopoly of political activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With the so-called “Corrective Movement” led by Hafez al-Assad in 1970, the Ba’ath Party was no longer merely the ruling party, but rather the framework within which the state itself was integrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 1973 constitution enshrined this reality when it stipulated in Article 8 that “the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party is the leading party of the state and society.” Thus, state institutions, the army, the administration, unions, and universities all operated within the single-party system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This constitutional provision was not simply a legal formulation; it established a new political culture based on the monopolization of power, linking loyalty to the state to loyalty to the party, and transforming party affiliation into one of the most important criteria for promotion, appointment, and access to decision-making positions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To give a semblance of pluralism, the “National Progressive Front” was established in 1972, comprising a number of parties that agreed to operate under the leadership of the Ba’ath Party. However, this front was not a framework for political competition, but rather a framework for organizing the relationship between the ruling party and some of its allied forces, without possessing any real ability to influence political decisions or the transfer of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, genuine party life was absent from Syria for more than half a century, and other parties were relegated to the margins, while the Ba’ath Party became the only party capable of accessing state institutions and making decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With the outbreak of popular protests in 2011, the regime found itself facing internal and external pressures that led to the announcement of a series of political reforms. The most prominent of these was the promulgation of a new constitution in 2012, which abolished Article 8, granting the Ba’ath Party the status of the leading party in the state and society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In theory, this amendment appeared to be a significant constitutional shift, as it enshrined the principle of political pluralism and allowed for the enactment of a new law on political parties, permitting the establishment of parties outside the framework of the Ba’ath Party and the National Progressive Front.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the practical reality remained far removed from the constitutional provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The security apparatus continued to hold sway over political life, and administrative and legal restrictions on the establishment and activities of political parties persisted. The country did not witness genuinely competitive elections or a real transfer of power, leading many researchers to view these reforms as an attempt to absorb pressure rather than a genuine transition to democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, political pluralism in Syria remained, until the fall of the former regime, merely a formality that did not bring about any fundamental change in the power structure, nor did it grant new parties a genuine opportunity to compete or participate in decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fall of Bashar al-Assad\u2019s regime in December 2014 brought about a radical transformation in the Syrian political landscape. For the first time in over sixty years, the Ba’ath Party’s dominance over the state ended, and a transitional phase began, aimed at rebuilding institutions on new foundations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On January 29, 2015, the transitional authorities decided to dissolve the parties of the National Progressive Front, foremost among them the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, and to terminate all the political and organizational privileges these parties had enjoyed for decades, as they were considered part of the political structure of the former regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The interim constitutional declaration, issued on March 14, 2015, stipulated the guarantee of freedom to establish political parties, but it linked the exercise of this right to the issuance of a new law regulating party life and defining the conditions for establishment, funding, and political activity. This law remained postponed throughout the first phase of the political transition, under the pretext of the absence of a competent legislative authority to enact it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the convening of the People’s Assembly on July 12, 2016, removed this justification and made the issuance of the Political Parties Law one of the most important constitutional and political obligations facing the new Assembly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this context, the interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, stated on March 5, 2016, that the Political Parties Law would be issued after the formation of the People’s Assembly, and that it would take into account the specificities of Syrian society and the requirements of the transitional phase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the book “Political Parties in Syria,” published by the Jusoor Center for Studies, the number of parties established in Syria, both before and after 2011, reached approximately 134. However, none of them currently enjoys the status of an officially registered party within the country due to the absence of a regulatory legal framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This reality places Syria before a new foundational stage, which is not about reviving old parties, nor about allowing the birth of a large number of parties without controls, but rather about building a modern national party life that is part of the state-building project, not an alternative to it, nor a competitor to it for legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The mere enactment of a law on political parties does not automatically guarantee a mature political life. Legislation, however precise, cannot alone create a democratic culture or build stable institutions. Therefore, Syria, in this transitional phase, faces a set of structural challenges that must be addressed realistically and responsibly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps the first of these challenges is the continued security challenges and the uneven distribution of administrative control across the entire Syrian territory. These conditions complicate party activity, as parties can only flourish in a stable environment that guarantees freedom of assembly, movement, and expression, and provides legal protection for all political actors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second challenge lies in the potential for parties to be formed on sectarian, ethnic, or regional grounds. This could transform political pluralism into a reproduction of the societal divisions that Syria has suffered during the years of war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Constitutional Declaration was right to prohibit the establishment of parties on these grounds. However, legal texts alone are insufficient unless accompanied by independent judicial oversight and a political culture that believes in equal citizenship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A third challenge is the lack of experience with political parties in Syrian society after more than half a century of political absence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Entire generations have grown up without engaging in free party politics, experiencing internal elections, leadership rotation, or the development of political programs. This makes building institutionalized parties a process that requires time, training, and the accumulation of experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Syria is not the first country to transition from a one-party system or authoritarian rule to political pluralism. Numerous experiences preceded it, offering valuable lessons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Germany after World War II, the field was not left open without controls. Rather, party life was rebuilt within a strict constitutional framework that protected the democratic system and prevented the return of parties that threatened the state or incited hatred and violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Spain, after the death of General Franco in 1975, the state opted for a gradual transition to pluralism while maintaining institutional stability, which prevented the country from descending into chaos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
South Africa, on the other hand, successfully transformed political competition after the end of apartheid into a means of national reconciliation through a comprehensive constitution, independent institutions, and respect for election results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conversely, some experiences have shown that the uncontrolled proliferation of political parties, or their foundation on narrow identities, leads to the fragmentation of the political landscape, weakens governments, and hinders development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These experiences underscore that the success of pluralism is not measured by the number of parties, but rather by the quality of the legal framework governing their operation and their ability to represent society within the state’s framework, not outside of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is needed today is not merely the enactment of a law on political parties, but a law that establishes a stable and sustainable political life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such principles do not restrict political freedom, but rather protect it from deviation and maintain a balance between the right to political organization and the requirements of national security and social unity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Four main scenarios can be envisioned for the trajectory of party life in the coming years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first scenario, and the most likely, is one of controlled pluralism. A balanced law would be enacted allowing for the establishment of responsible national parties, with safeguards to prevent sectarian division and political extremism. Party life would then develop gradually in parallel with the consolidation of state institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second scenario is one of prolonged postponement. If security considerations prevail over political reform and the issuance of a parties law continues to be delayed, political activity would remain in a legal gray area, leading to a decline in confidence in the political transition process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The third scenario is one of chaotic pluralism. If a lenient law is enacted allowing the establishment of dozens of parties without clear criteria, pluralism would devolve into political fragmentation and societal polarization, negatively impacting the stability of the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fourth scenario, the desired one, is national consensus, where a relatively small number of parties emerge, but they are strong, with clear programs and genuine popular support. These parties form national alliances and gradually transition from a struggle for power to competition in offering solutions and public policies, thereby strengthening stability and enshrining the peaceful transfer of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Syria today stands before a historic opportunity to rebuild its political life after more than six decades of one-party rule. However, the success of this opportunity depends not only on enacting a new law, but also on building a new political culture that believes in citizenship, respects the constitution, upholds the peaceful transfer of power, and accepts diversity as a source of strength for society, not a threat to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The value of political parties lies not in their number, nor in the intensity of their rhetoric, but in their ability to transform pluralism into national partnership, opposition into responsible oversight, and disagreement into peaceful competition within state institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A party that makes the state its supreme authority and places the national interest above its organizational interests is a partner in building the new Syria. Any party that reduces the nation to its own group, or seeks to monopolize truth or power, reproduces tyranny, regardless of its slogans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, Syria’s future needs not a multitude of parties, but rather responsible national parties that believe the state is the unifying framework for all Syrians, and that political competition is not a battle for survival, but a civilized means of building a state of law and institutions, preserving national unity, and fulfilling the aspirations of its people for freedom, justice, and sustainable development.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Understanding the role of political parties in Syria during the transitional phase and the importance of shifting towards participation instead of monopoly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":66312,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4688,4853],"tags":[4718],"class_list":["post-66314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-presidency-office-en","category-research-and-studies-department-en","tag-articles"],"yoast_head":"\n