Syria’s new People’s Assembly has taken another important step towards becoming a functioning legislature. After five days of internal debate, parliament finalised its 231-article rulebook on 30 July. The bylaws contain much that could help transform the assembly from the largely ceremonial institution it was under Bashar al-Assad into a stronger legislature. They give Members of Parliament (MPs) clearer procedures and potentially stronger tools that, if used effectively, could help parliament establish an institutional identity of its own.
But the new rules also contain a flaw that could weaken that progress from the outset: too much authority over parliament’s internal workings is concentrated in the hands of the speaker. This structure risks weakening the legislature’s independence by giving its leadership substantial control over how MPs and committees exercise their powers.
There is much to welcome in the bylaws. Parliamentary sessions are public by default, voting results and minutes are to be published, and disclosure is established as the general principle governing parliamentary documents. MPs also enjoy immunity for statements, votes and other acts undertaken in the course of their duties.
Parliamentary committees can request documents and information from ministries and public bodies, summon officials to provide explanations and conduct field visits. Temporary committees can investigate allegations of criminal, financial or administrative wrongdoing and refer their findings to judicial or oversight bodies. MPs can also record dissenting opinions, while major disciplinary sanctions require a parliamentary vote. These provisions equip parliament with important tools to scrutinise the government and assert its institutional role. But their effectiveness is constrained by the degree of control parliamentary leadership exercises over their use.
