Demanding the rule of law in the new Syria is a regional necessity

Dr Ahmed Al-Qurbi, a member of the Constitutional Declaration Drafting Committee, underscored the legal requirements for adopting national symbols by citing Article 5 of the Constitutional Declaration, which stipulates that the state's emblem "shall be determined by law".

A state rooted in legality cannot therefore be symbolised by an emblem that has not been formally approved through constitutional procedures. Yet rather than engaging with this legal concern, the public mood seemed fixated on the eagle's origins and symbolism, despite its presence in Syrian artefacts for millennia.

Since the fall of the Assad regime, Syria has become a nation divided into two fiercely opposing factions. One side offers unequivocal support for all decisions and actions taken by the authorities—particularly those of President Al-Sharaa. The other categorically rejects every statement and initiative from those same authorities, regardless of its substance.

Caught between these extremes is a vanishing middle ground. The noise of championing or chiding drowns out the moderate Syrian voice that might once have offered critique to correct, improve, and support, for the purposes of building a better system. Yet the critics have a point.

A closed shop

Since December, a defining feature of the new leadership has been a troubling lack of transparency in its communication with the public. This is a problem, because when a system seems closed, it gives rise to rumour, speculation, and conflicting interpretations that the public struggles to navigate, as they wonder what is fact and what is fiction.

Take one example: on 17 May, the presidency issued a decree forming a Transitional Justice Commission tasked with uncovering violations committed by the former regime, holding perpetrators accountable, and compensating victims. Abdul Basit Abdul Latif was appointed head of the commission, with a mandate to assemble a working group and establish internal regulations within 30 days. Yet that deadline passed more than six weeks ago, and the commission's status remains unknown.

It reflects not only a lack of transparency, but also the authorities' failure to uphold their own legal commitments, as seen with Article 5 of the Constitutional Declaration, thus begging the question: what kind of Syria will be built?

Between the 'December 2024 revolutionaries' (the government's most vocal supporters) and the unrelenting opposition of those in the other camp, there is paralysis. The latter, which includes vestiges of the former regime or rigid leftists clinging to outdated ideologies, seems intent on discrediting every step taken by the state. As a result, the authorities face a challenge.

Syria's stability is not merely a domestic concern, but a strategic necessity for the wider region. A stable Syria underpins the stability of its neighbours. Building a state founded on citizenship, the rule of law, justice, freedom, and transparency is essential for stability, to secure a sustainable future for this generation of Syrians and those that follow. Any edifice built on flawed foundations is bound to collapse, and Syria's adversaries still be waiting in the wings.