Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), after gaining control of Damascus, has conveyed a vision for Syria’s governance that includes various sects but appears to favor a predetermined presidential system. Their dominance threatens to marginalize minorities and lacks a genuine commitment to local autonomy. In addition, HTS’s approach to sharia law and rejection of international involvement raise significant concerns about inclusivity and democratic processes in shaping the future of Syria’s constitution.
The recent political landscape in Syria is being shaped by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) following their control over Damascus and government institutions. HTS leadership has expressed intentions to create an inclusive governance structure, accommodating various sects and minorities within Syria. However, despite their rhetoric, there are alarming signs that HTS may have already established a framework for governance favoring a presidential system, bypassing essential negotiations typically required in a post-conflict constitutional process.
HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa articulated that presidential elections would not occur for a few years, indicating a default preference for a presidential governance model rather than parliamentary, which is often settled through complex dialogue among political factions. This presumption raises concerns, especially in light of the detrimental impact of previous presidential systems in the region. Moreover, HTS has expressed a clear reluctance toward decentralization, advocating for a centralized government to foster national unity. This approach conflicts with the desire for local autonomy acknowledged by various communities, notably the Kurds and Druze, who have vital stakes in Syria’s political future.
Regarding the role of Islam and sharia law, HTS has signaled a commitment to a governance model imparting Islamic principles, which has raised alarms among various demographics and observers. The group has begun implementing educational reforms that align with their ideological stance, further embedding religious governance into the societal fabric of Syria. They have also dismissed the notion of significant international involvement in formulating Syria’s constitution, rejecting the United Nations’ historical engagement as unproductive.
HTS’s assertion that constitutional negotiations may extend for several years reflects realistic uncertainties stemming from ongoing territorial divisions. However, the organization emphasizes that forthcoming negotiations will proceed through majority voting, which poses risks for minority rights within the fractious political landscape. This inclination resonates with patterns observed in other countries where Islamist groups have pushed exclusionary agendas during constitutional discussions, often resulting in conflict and violence. Considering the sorry history of similar scenarios in the Arab region, a consensus-driven approach is crucial for stability.
As developments unfold, it is imperative for both Syrians and the international community to encourage HTS to embrace genuine negotiations aimed at establishing a more inclusive and constructive governance framework. Ensuring that inclusivity is not merely a rhetorical strategy but a foundational aspect of Syria’s governance is essential to avert repeating past failures that have plagued Arab states in pursuit of constitutional reform. A collaborative effort to define the system of governance—rather than an imposed structure—is necessary at this critical juncture in Syria’s future.
The current political environment in Syria has been significantly altered by the rise of the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which recently assumed control over the government in Damascus. The group has expressed intentions to be inclusive of various minority groups as it seeks to define Syria’s future constitutional order. However, underlying this rhetoric are decisions made about governance structures that seem predetermined by HTS, raising concerns about the transparency and inclusivity of the political transition.
In summary, the trajectory of Syria’s political future is precarious as HTS navigates the complex realities of governance following its rise to power. Its inclination towards a centralized presidential system, reluctance to allow federalism, and rapid implementations of Islamic governance principles pose significant risks for the diverse Syrian populace. Ensuring that HTS engages in consensus-building negotiations rather than forcing unilateral decisions is vital to foster a legitimate and inclusive governance structure that can address the historical grievances and aspirations of all Syrians. The international community’s role in supporting these efforts is equally critical in steering Syria towards a more stable and harmonious future.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
