Syria cannot afford to postpone pluralism

To provide assurances, al-Sharaa reaffirmed his commitment to political pluralism. This pledge was enshrined in the 2025 Constitutional Declaration, which guarantees the right to political participation and the freedom to form political parties. Yet the declaration carries a significant caveat: these rights are conditional on the passage of a new political party law.

This legal vacuum has effectively stalled Syria's political transition. While citizens are free to discuss politics, the absence of a framework for party formation renders genuine political organisation all but impossible. The result is a troubling paradox: rights are guaranteed in principle, yet remain out of reach in practice. This disconnect has only deepened scepticism among those already wary of the transition's direction.

Bad optics

Al-Shaibani seemed keen to present a balanced assessment of political life during the transition. He noted that, unlike under al-Assad, Syrians are now able to engage in political debate without fear—a huge step up from the Assad era. At the same time, he acknowledged that no political parties are currently active in Syria, but reaffirmed the transitional government's commitment to holding direct parliamentary and presidential elections after the transitional phase, pointing to a provisional four-year timeline. Yet he offered no indication of when the formation of new political parties might be permitted—an omission that casts doubt on the credibility of his electoral roadmap.

Technically, the adoption of a political party law falls within the remit of the incoming parliament. However, the government still has a critical role to play in facilitating and accelerating the process. Several ministries are reportedly drafting legislation within their respective portfolios in preparation for the first parliamentary session, aiming to avoid unnecessary delays. Yet it remains unclear what concrete steps are being taken by the transitional authorities to prioritise the political party law. No lead body has been identified, no roadmap outlined, and no public commitment made to a timetable that would expedite the drafting and legislative process.

With just four years remaining before two pivotal elections, time is a scarce commodity. Political parties cannot be formed overnight; they require time to organise, define platforms, cultivate constituencies, and prepare for meaningful competition. Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa—and the movement expected to form around him—already benefits from a substantial institutional and symbolic head start, owing to his central role in toppling the regime and steering the transition. Delays in legalising new parties risk reinforcing sceptics' perception that the process is being deliberately stalled to cement that advantage. Intentional or not, the optics are politically damaging.

Clear roadmap needed

If the transitional authorities are serious about building a pluralist and inclusive Syria, they must move beyond vague assurances and take decisive action. That starts with a clear, public roadmap for legalising political parties —one that accelerates the drafting, debate, and ratification of a robust parties law.

But more than just a timeline, this law must be transformative. It must guarantee political freedoms, level the playing field, and dismantle the remnants of authoritarian control that still shadow the country's political landscape. Without such a law, politics in Syria will remain the preserve of the powerful—an exclusive privilege rather than a democratic right.

Any further delay, whether intentional or the result of institutional inertia, will only deepen public scepticism and further alienate those already doubtful of the transition's sincerity. Worse, it risks reproducing the very dynamics that ignited the revolution in the first place: centralised authority, political exclusion, and a performative public sphere.

There can be no credible transition without representation. No legitimacy without participation. If Syria is to break from its past, pluralism cannot be postponed—and neither can the laws that make it real. The burden now falls squarely on the transitional leadership to prove not just that they understand this urgency, but that they are willing to act on it boldly, transparently, and without delay.