It seemed that the political process following the regime change in Syria on December 8, 2024, was heading toward adopting a centralized political system. The National Dialogue Conference, held under the directives of Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara, resulted in a decision to “adopt a centralized governance system.”
In this context, a “draft interim constitution” was prepared based on this system. Turkey and Qatar, along with the United States and other Western countries, announced their support for a “centralized” political system.
The security incidents that took place in Syria’s coastal cities in March 2025 further bolstered support for the “centralized governance system” at both domestic and international levels.
However, the events in Suwayda, which began between the Druze and Arab Bedouins before escalating into a complex crisis due to Israeli attacks, appear to be influencing Syria’s administrative future.
What happened in Suwayda strengthened the position of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which proposes a decentralized governance system in opposition to the Damascus government. The U.S. and Israel, despite their disagreements on many points, have found common ground regarding Syria’s future following the Suwayda crisis.
The strong support Israel provided to the Druze during the Suwayda crisis, coupled with the Damascus government’s withdrawal from the region, has reinforced demands for “federalism/autonomy” in both the Alawite and Kurdish regions.
The Hasakah Conference
The Syrian Democratic Forces held a conference in Hasakah to contribute to developing a unified stance on establishing a “decentralized” system in Syria, titled: “Conference for a Unified Stance of Northeastern Syria’s Components.”
Over 400 people participated, including prominent figures from the region with strong ties to the SDF, as well as remnants of the Assad regime. Druze leader Hikmat al-Hijri, backed by Israel, and Sheikh Ghazal Ghazal, head of the Syrian Alawite Council, joined online. Arab and Turkmen tribal leaders, as well as activists from the region, also attended.
The SDF spent weeks preparing for the conference, particularly in Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces, holding intensive meetings with activists, tribal elders, and Kurdish and Arab figures to increase popular support for the proposed decentralized system.
They clarified that decentralization or self-governance should encompass all of Syria, not just their own areas. The main goal of the conference was to build momentum around decentralization to use in negotiations with Damascus, emphasizing it as “the only system that meets the people’s demands and aspirations.”
By involving Druze leader Hikmat al-Hijri and Alawite Sheikh Ghazal Ghazal, the SDF sought to present decentralization as a demand unifying different regions.
Jivan Mulla Ibrahim, a member of the preparatory committee, stated that the goal was to unify the region’s components and send a clear message to Syrian and international parties that these groups share a common will to build a pluralistic, decentralized Syrian state ensuring equal rights and duties.
In recent months, the SDF has pushed several Arab tribal leaders in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor to adopt the “self-administration” project, presenting it as a local option regardless of the SDF’s future presence in these areas.
In this context, SDF commander Mazloum Abdi, alongside other officials, held meetings with tribal leaders and local council representatives to discuss granting broader powers to residents to manage their affairs independently of Damascus’ central authority.
The Conference’s Final Statement
The final statement of the Hasakah conference contained striking indicators about Syria’s future, emphasizing the determination of participating Syrian components to act jointly. It stated:
“The will of representatives of Kurds, Arabs, Syriacs, Assyrians, Turkmen, Armenians, Circassians, and other communities has united to express their shared commitment to a comprehensive national and democratic path based on diversity, partnership, and equal citizenship.”
Regarding the events in Latakia and Suwayda, the statement stressed “the need to identify those responsible for crimes against humanity in Suwayda and Latakia, regardless of their identity,” a message aimed at increasing pressure on Damascus.
The statement clearly defended the self-administration model, arguing that Syria’s unity and integrity can only be guaranteed through this system:
“Participants expressed that the current self-administration model is a participatory experience that can be developed and advanced, serving as a living example of democratic community governance.”
The statement notably praised the SDF, expressing “great appreciation for their sacrifices in defending the region and its people’s dignity,” and considering them “the nucleus for building a new national army—voluntary, professional, and representative of Syria’s true societal structure, protecting its borders and territorial integrity.”
This praise, along with discussions between Druze leader Hikmat al-Hijri and Alawite Sheikh Ghazal Ghazal, suggests Mazloum Abdi will represent Druze and Alawites in negotiations with Ahmad al-Shara, particularly regarding Syria’s governance system.
The statement also called for drafting a constitution based on decentralization, criticizing al-Shara’s interim draft for failing to meet Syrians’ demands for freedom and dignity, and urging a new national dialogue conference including all parties.
With this statement, the SDF and participants rejected any administrative, political, or legal arrangements announced by Damascus since December 8, opening a broad debate on Syria’s state structure and casting doubt on the sustainability of the centralization steps taken so far.
Damascus’ Reaction and Hakan Fidan’s Visit
The Hasakah conference and its final statement were met with anger from Damascus, which viewed them as contrary to the March 10 agreement between Ahmad al-Shara and Mazloum Abdi.
The Syrian state news agency (SANA) published an unnamed government official’s assessment, expressing Damascus’ stance in an unofficial manner to avoid a direct statement.
The assessment described the conference as “a blow to ongoing negotiation efforts,” stating the government “will not negotiate with any party seeking to restore the former regime in any form or name.” It also condemned hosting “figures involved in separatist and hostile acts” as a clear violation of the March 10 agreement.
The assessment accused the conference of seeking foreign intervention and reimposing sanctions, holding the SDF responsible for its legal, political, and historical consequences. It stressed that Syria’s state structure would be determined by a permanent constitution approved via public referendum.
Notably, the official announced Damascus would not attend the planned meeting in France with the SDF—a decision made just one day after Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s unannounced visit to Damascus on August 7.
According to Ankara sources, Fidan’s meeting with al-Shara lasted three hours, partly in private. They discussed multiple issues, including ISIS camp conditions, SDF-Damascus negotiations, integrating the SDF into the state, and Israeli attacks on Syria. The sources indicated Damascus’ withdrawal from the France meetings was based on Fidan’s direct recommendation.
Is Decentralization Suitable for Syria?
Governance systems worldwide vary between presidential, parliamentary, and other models, differing by country.
For example, Germany has 16 states, each with its own parliament, prime minister, and laws, but they remain subordinate to the federal government in areas like foreign policy and defense. The U.S. states apply their own systems but are governed by a presidential authority. The UK comprises four nations—Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland—each with its own governance arrangements.
Asia and the Middle East also feature diverse governance models, reflecting each country’s history, institutional experience, and societal evolution, making the transfer of any successful system unpredictable.
Proponents of autonomy or decentralization cite examples like Scotland remaining in the UK, Hamburg as a German state, or Florida belonging to the U.S.
However, building a successful governance system requires alignment with geographic, social, and cultural realities. A model effective in Europe may not work in a different environment.
Thus, Syria—and the Middle East generally—appears less suited for decentralization, given the risk of fragmentation amid insecurity and economic instability.
Decentralization may be more viable in politically, economically, and security-stable countries, though even established nations like Scotland have sought independence.
In Syria’s context, many argue decentralization discussions should follow establishing a centralized system ensuring political, economic, and security stability. However, some actors and international powers are exploiting the new government’s weaknesses to push Syria away from centralization.
Support Dawat Media Center
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320
Support Dawat Media Center
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320
Comments are closed.