Fuel price hikes and government response anger Syrians

Symbolic, yet important

The parliamentary hearing was symbolic, but not meaningless. The transitional constitutional declaration allows the assembly to hold hearings with ministers. But it provides no mechanism for MPs to dismiss them or compel them to reverse a policy. Those powers remain with the president.

Despite these limitations, the hearing still mattered. By summoning al-Bashir, MPs sought to show that parliament could reflect public concerns and require officials to defend controversial decisions. For an institution still trying to establish its relevance, that was important.

Yet the events preceding the session weakened that effort. The hearing was originally scheduled for 17 September, but al-Bashir requested its postponement until 20 September. He said he needed more time to address the large number and broad scope of MPs' written questions, many of which extended beyond the fuel price increase.

During the delay, al-Bashir met President Ahmed al-Sharaa. The ministry then announced its mitigation measures at a press conference before he faced MPs. The new plan kept standard diesel at 175 pounds per litre, introduced another grade at 150 pounds for specified productive and service activities, and offered subsidised lower-grade diesel refined locally at 115 pounds for heating, agriculture and other eligible groups.

The measures addressed part of the backlash, but the way they were announced unsettled some MPs. In private conversations with the author, several parliamentarians expressed dissatisfaction that al-Bashir had chosen to present the new measures and defend the price increase before journalists rather than parliament. Some described the press conference as a "pre-emptive" move.

For these MPs, unveiling the measures before lawmakers would have shown that parliamentary hearings could influence government policy and, in turn, strengthened the assembly's public credibility.

Doing so, however, would also have established a precedent. Citizens and MPs might then expect future hearings to produce policy changes rather than explanations alone. Whether intentional or not, announcing the measures beforehand deprived parliament of credit and kept expectations of its influence in check. That may shield the government from parliamentary pressure, but it comes at the expense of the assembly's perceived relevance and legitimacy.

The press conference raised a second, more consequential question, one that several MPs also raised privately and during the hearing: why were the government's explanations and mitigation measures announced only after the price increase?

Citizens should not have had to receive the shock first, then receive the rationale and partial relief only after taking to the streets. Explaining the decision in advance and announcing protections alongside it would not have removed the burden. But it would have given people time to prepare and demonstrated that the government had considered the consequences and planned to ease their impact.

Reactive response

Instead, the response appeared reactive. That damages the executive's credibility, undermines perceptions of its competence and raises a deeper question about how it views the people it serves: as citizens entitled to an explanation, or merely as recipients of decisions made without them.

Parliament cannot shield Syrians from the country's financial constraints or global energy shocks. But it can demand that major decisions be publicly explained before they are imposed and accompanied by measures to protect those least able to absorb them. The hearing showed that some MPs want to play that role. It also showed that, without stronger powers and an executive willing to accept scrutiny, questioning a minister will remain an assertion of relevance rather than an instrument of accountability.