DAMASCUS/QAMISHLI, Syria (North Press) – Syria’s first parliamentary elections following the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad’s regime have sparked intense debate over the true representativeness of the electoral process and the legitimacy of its outcome. The elections, which come amid ongoing political and security challenges, have raised concerns about the extent to which they reflect the broader Syrian public’s will, particularly in light of the exclusion of three key governorates and the appointment of 70 members of the new parliament by Transitional President Ahmad al-Sharaa without elections.
A critical necessity amid political complexities
Syrian political analyst Tawfiq Abdulhamid described the elections as “a pressing necessity” at this stage of Syria’s transition, explaining that they are aimed at providing the new government with additional internal legitimacy after the formation of partial economic, security, and military institutions.
However, he cautioned that the electoral process is fraught with “major complications and obstacles,” the most significant of which is the exclusion of three Syrian governorates from participating in the elections. Abdulhamid deems this exclusion “a grave mistake,” one for which he holds the elections committee or other authorities responsible.
These excluded governorates, according to Abdulhamid, are politically and security-wise distinct. “The northeast of Syria is under autonomous administration with its own political agenda. Suwayda is experiencing separatist demands led by Sheikh Hikmat al-Hajri, and the Syrian coast remains dominated by loyalists to the new authority, with minimal opposition influence,” he said.
The politician argued that these areas should have been included in the process. “Their inclusion would have provided the electoral process with broader political credibility, allowed local figures to present their visions and programs, and made the elections more engaging and realistic.”
Appointments and elections
Abdulhamid also addressed al-Sharaa’s decision to appoint 70 of the 210 parliamentary members, leaving 140 seats open for electoral competition. He suggested that this division reflects the current political environment in Syria.
“These elections are not taking place within a mature political environment or an established political society. Syria’s political culture remains weak after six decades of centralized rule and the absence of democratic practice,” Abdulhamid explained.
Political analyst Samir Abu Saleh echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that the elections represent “a positive step in the right direction.” However, he emphasized that “the necessary foundations for such a process, such as civic engagement and political awareness, are still lacking.”
Abu Saleh further noted that Syria is still grappling with challenging internal circumstances, including ongoing crises that are likely to affect the credibility of the elections.
He added that the presidential appointments align with the resolutions of the transitional government, but he questioned the constitutional legitimacy of those resolutions.
One-sided imposition
Walid Choli, a researcher at the Qamishli-based Euphrates Center for Studies, argued that the events unfolding in Damascus since the fall of the Assad regime “fundamentally contradict the principles of a genuine transitional phase.”
Choli explained that the current political stage “was not built on a foundation of true national consensus, but was instead imposed unilaterally by a party seeking to reproduce an authoritarian, highly centralized power structure.” He described the transition as a continuation of the crisis, not its resolution.
The process, according to Choli, began with a superficial national dialogue, followed by a unilateral constitutional declaration, the formation of a partisan government, and finally, an electoral process “predetermined in both its structure and its outcome.”
The core political crisis
Choli contended that the issue goes beyond the exclusion of three governorates or the presidential appointments; it lies in the “fundamental illegitimacy of the transitional phase itself.”
He questioned whether Syria is truly undergoing a transitional period or if it remains mired in an even deeper structural political crisis than before.
Choli argued that even if all governorates were included in the elections and electoral laws were amended, the process would still lack legitimacy. “This is because it is based on a unilateral framework rather than a comprehensive national accord,” he stated.
For Syria to overcome its political crisis, Choli concluded, more than procedural electoral reforms are needed. “It requires redefining the transitional phase as a foundational project for a new Syria—one built on a comprehensive national contract, a consensual constitution that guarantees political and ethnic rights for all Syrians, and a decentralized democratic system that ends the old centralization of power and redistributes authority.”
He emphasized that only under these conditions can true legitimacy and a genuine transition toward a stable, just, and democratic state be achieved—rather than merely reproducing the crisis under new names.
Reporting by Abdulsalam Khoja