When the decision to ban makeup for female employees in Latakia’s public institutions drew criticism, officials moved quickly to contain the backlash. The measure, they insisted, had been misunderstood. It was not about restricting personal freedom, but about “regulating professional appearance” and curbing excess. Public anger was acknowledged. The ban itself, however, remained firmly in place.
On its own, the policy might seem trivial—a minor administrative rule governing workplace conduct, but taken in context, it is anything but. Read alongside a series of recent measures, the ban reflects worrying signs of a growing tendency for state officials to intervene in personal life, with women’s appearance and behaviour increasingly treated as matters for regulation.
The ban was issued on 26 January by the governor of Latakia. It imposed a blanket prohibition on women using makeup in state institutions during working hours, enforced by the threat of legal accountability. Initially, it attracted little attention. Many assumed the order was a hoax, especially as it emerged amid heightened tensions between Damascus and Kurdish forces in northeast Syria.
That changed once the governorate’s public relations office issued a clarification confirming the decision. The explanation provoked more outrage than the original order. Officials argued that the measure did not target women specifically and did not infringe on personal freedom. It was merely intended to prevent “excessive” makeup and uphold professional standards.
The problem is that the policy defines neither “excess” nor professionalism. It offers no criteria, no proportionality, and no discretion. If moderation were truly the objective, clear guidance would have sufficed. What was imposed instead was an absolute rule, enforced through coercion rather than trust.
