QAMISHLI, Syria (North Press) – Politicians and researchers believe that, one year after the fall of the Assad regime, Syria stands before a complex and multi-layered landscape of political, constitutional, social, and economic transformations. However, the transitional phase remains unstable and incomplete, with many challenges yet to be addressed.
Some analysts argue that the Syrian transitional government continues to operate within a narrow political and constitutional framework, despite numerous developments witnessed over the past year. At the same time, the economy remains fragile due to the collapse of the national currency and increasing dependence on imports and foreign aid.
Others note that the transitional government has made limited but meaningful steps, though numerous issues at the security, administrative, and dialogue levels remain unresolved.
Five main sectors
Anas Joudeh, Syrian politician, told North Press that assessing Syria’s situation one year after the regime’s fall requires a comprehensive examination of five main sectors: the transitional constitutional sector and constitutional space, the economic reality, the social reality, the security reality, and the accumulated regional realities intertwined with domestic politics.
Joudeh explained that the constitutional sector has witnessed five major milestones achieved by the authorities that included the Egypt Conference, the Dialogue Conference, the Constitutional Declaration, the formation of the government, and parliamentary elections. These milestones, he said, demonstrated a clear pattern of power centralization, concentrating authority in a narrow political and executive circle, even ideologically.
He added that speaking of majority representation under these circumstances refers to a limited scope, where the authorities have effectively closed the door to any form of dialogue, whether for partnership or for engaging with internal and regional actors, local communities, or political forces that transcend official structures.
On the economic front, Joudeh described the situation as “extremely fragile,” emphasizing that the economy is fully opened to imports, heavily reliant on foreign currencies, and increasingly dollarized. He warned that the country has gradually shifted toward a donations-based system, a political economy that reproduces the same structures of power and dominance, recycling resources that circulated during the war.
He criticized recent investment agreements, stating that most purported contracts involved fictitious companies, leaving the economic structure weak and fragile, particularly after the collapse of support for social groups and the dismissal of employees.
Lack of security structures
Regarding security, Joudeh described it as the most dangerous sector. He explained that the rebuilt security institutions lack clear structures, with ambiguous chains of command and unclear leadership. “The army no longer exists in the traditional sense, and general security forces operate on a singular ideological foundation that is unable to impose security or create a consensus among Syrians,” he said.
He pointed to recent violence in Suwayda and coastal areas, noting that authorities and local agencies were unable to control the incidents. He also highlighted attempts to manage tribal dynamics in Homs, describing them as a final effort to avoid falling into a “third trap” following two previous crises involving mobilizations and massacres.
Joudeh further emphasized that the social fabric is under extreme strain, with growing sectarian tensions. Syrian communities have fragmented, hostilities are fully exposed, and trust in national identity has largely disappeared, undermining the very concept of a unified nation.
On the regional front, he noted the ongoing struggle for influence among external actors, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and occasionally France, Russia, and the UAE. He highlighted the impact of the Turkish-Israeli conflict, Israeli strikes, and various regional interventions shaping the Syrian context.
He concluded by warning that deep societal divisions could escalate into open conflict unless Syrian society establishes a bottom-up national social contract and implements a participatory political transition, rather than one imposed from the top.
Hope and anxiety
Syrian researcher Zaidoun al-Zoubi, specializing in identity and governance, told North Press that the current situation is “neither what we hoped for nor what we feared,” describing Syria as being in a transitional phase that combines encouraging indicators with concerning developments.
Al-Zoubi explained that the phase is characterized by “both hope and anxiety.” He added that political agreements between the transitional government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) require updates, as many have yet to fully take root.
He noted that the post-Assad period witnessed notable ruptures, particularly in the coast and Suwayda, as well as a breakdown in dialogue between Damascus and local authorities in Suwayda, which he described as “worrisome.”
Al-Zoubi stressed that Syria still requires substantial progress in governance and dialogue, but also acknowledged that some “tangible and reasonable steps” have been achieved during this transitional year.