Syria’s National Dialogue conference, a significant step in the country’s political transition following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad in December, concluded on Tuesday with a focus on drafting a new constitution and protecting fundamental rights and freedoms. This one-day conference, announced only two days prior, left little time for many potential participants to prepare. Despite the short notice, approximately 600 Syrians attended the talks, which many view as an essential step toward elections and a democratic future free from decades of authoritarian rule.
At the conclusion of the conference, a statement was delivered by Houda Atassi, a member of the Preparatory Committee for the National Dialogue. The statement outlined key objectives, including the drafting of a new constitution and the formation of a “temporary constitutional declaration” and a “temporary legislative council” to guide Syria’s future governance. The new constitution is expected to reflect a break from the decades-long dominance of the al-Assad family and the Baath party, which has shaped Syrian political life since the 1960s. The statement emphasized the need for a balance of powers, the establishment of justice, freedom, and equality, and the creation of a state built on the rule of law and institutional governance. However, beyond these broad principles, no concrete details were provided on how the constitution would be formulated or implemented. This lack of clarity is concerning given the March 1 deadline for a new transitional government to take power, which was previously announced.
The question of how Syria’s new constitution will take shape is crucial, as it will reveal the direction of the nation’s political future. Concerns persist regarding the intentions of the new Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, particularly due to his former ties with al-Qaeda. Although al-Sharaa has publicly distanced himself from his past affiliations and refrained from using divisive rhetoric, skepticism remains. Throughout the conference, delegates were organized into working groups that focused on specific areas, including constitutional development, civil society, the economy, and personal freedoms. Discussions within these groups were kept confidential, contributing to uncertainty about the specifics of the proposed constitutional framework.
A significant portion of the closing statement condemned Israel’s actions in Syria following al-Assad’s fall, describing them as a “blatant violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian state.” Since the collapse of the Assad regime, Israel has expanded its military presence in the region, including the establishment of control over a buffer zone between Syria and the Golan Heights, which remains Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. Israel has also seized control of areas beyond the buffer zone, such as Mount Hermon, and has conducted numerous airstrikes on Syrian military sites, including attacks on the night preceding the Dialogue’s conclusion. The statement demanded the “immediate and unconditional withdrawal” of Israeli forces from all Syrian territories and rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that Israel would not tolerate Syrian military forces in southern Syria. Furthermore, the Dialogue accused Israel of attempting to inflame sectarian tensions by suggesting it might protect Syria’s Druze community, which is concentrated in the southern regions. The committee’s statement reaffirmed Syria’s commitment to preserving the unity of the Syrian Arab Republic and maintaining sovereignty over all its territory, rejecting any attempts to divide, fragment, or cede land.
Another area of concern involves ongoing discussions between the new Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led group controlling large areas in northeastern Syria. The SDF has expressed hesitation to disarm and has indicated a desire for some form of autonomous governance in the regions under its control. However, the Syrian government has made it clear that it will not accept any form of territorial fragmentation or the creation of independent enclaves within its borders. These negotiations remain unresolved, further complicating the nation’s already fragile transition.
The National Dialogue’s closing statement also placed considerable emphasis on promoting human rights, gender equality, and freedom of expression. It called for “supporting the role of women in all fields” and “rejecting all forms of discrimination based on race, religion, or sect.” This represents a shift from the practices of the previous regime, under which citizens frequently faced imprisonment for expressing dissenting opinions. However, there remain contradictions within the new government regarding the role of women in public life. For example, Aisha al-Dibs, head of the Women’s Affairs Office in the Syrian caretaker government, previously stated that while women would play a significant role in the new Syria, their responsibilities should not “go beyond the priorities of their God-given nature” and should focus on education and family life. In contrast, Syria’s Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani publicly refuted these views, asserting that the new authorities are committed to ensuring women’s active participation in society. The conference rejected the implementation of ethnic or religious quotas in government, aligning with earlier statements by al-Sharaa and other ministers who opposed such measures.
Another critical issue addressed in the closing statement was the need for transitional justice and the accountability of those responsible for crimes committed under the previous regime. The statement called for “rejecting all forms of violence, incitement, and revenge,” reflecting concerns about reports of retaliatory attacks against individuals associated with the al-Assad regime. In regions such as Homs, there have been increasing accounts of revenge-driven violence targeting former regime loyalists. The emphasis on justice without retribution is seen as an attempt to curb further unrest and foster national reconciliation during this fragile transition period.
The rushed nature of the National Dialogue’s organization has drawn significant criticism. Many potential participants received invitations only days before the event, limiting the ability of key opposition figures and international observers to attend. George Sabra, an opposition politician living in exile in France, revealed that he was invited on February 23, just two days before the conference, making it impossible for him to travel to Damascus in time. This last-minute approach has fueled accusations that the Syrian government is limiting political pluralism and transparency. Critics argue that the lack of detailed plans for future elections and the ambiguous timeline for the political transition raises questions about how genuinely democratic the new Syria will be.
Despite these criticisms, the conference’s ability to gather around 600 participants suggests a significant degree of public engagement and interest in shaping Syria’s future. While concerns about representation and transparency persist, many view the National Dialogue as a vital, if imperfect, step toward establishing a post-Assad Syria. For those pushing for democratic pluralism, the conference marks a starting point for greater political participation and legal reforms. As the deadline for the transitional government approaches, the international community will closely watch how Syria navigates the path toward drafting a new constitution and resolving the tensions surrounding sovereignty, rights, and governance.
