Syria’s property protests require a national strategy

Government defence

The Ministry of Public Works and Housing has defended its approach. In a recent statement, it argued that most contested expropriations occurred decades ago, ownership passed to public bodies, and compensation was deposited under established procedures, with official records documenting the payments made.

It said delays in implementation do not automatically reverse expropriation as long as the public benefit remains. It also defended partnerships with developers, arguing that the state retains rights and revenues that can support housing programmes. The ministry recognised individual rights established by courts or official documents and announced a complaints office with Rural Damascus Governorate.

The statement leaves room to examine documented claims. Its underlying presumption, however, is that earlier transfers remain valid and disputes should be resolved within the framework that authorised them. It offers no broader review of that framework or the circumstances in which it operated.

That approach is inadequate for a country emerging from war and authoritarian rule. Under Assad, legal procedures could coexist with coercion, discriminatory confiscation and displacement. Wartime measures created further obstacles to recovering homes and proving ownership. Earlier expropriations likewise require scrutiny of compensation, public purpose and owners' practical ability to challenge decisions.

Not every expropriation was abusive, and the passage of time does not invalidate legitimate acquisitions for roads, schools or other public infrastructure. But a registry entry cannot establish that compensation was fair, that owners could challenge a decision safely, or that a project being pursued today still serves the public purpose originally invoked.

Nor can historical compensation be judged simply against current market prices, particularly where public investment later increased land values. The relevant questions are whether the original compensation was adequate and actually received, whether owners had a meaningful opportunity to contest the taking, and whether prolonged non-use or a change in development purpose now warrants reconsidering their rights.

Better approach needed

The persistence of these protests shows that the current approach is not resolving the problem. The People's Assembly can help establish a different one. Conversations with legislators indicate that more than 35 MPs have begun examining expropriation laws and possible legislative remedies. That effort should become the basis for a national framework governing disputed expropriations and redress.

Claims will still need to be assessed individually. Decisions, however, should follow transparent, consistent standards, regardless of a community's ability to organise protests or enlist influential intermediaries.

Those standards should distinguish between land already used for public infrastructure and land left unused, while separately examining unpaid or disputed compensation and evidence of coercion. They should prioritise restitution where feasible, provide fair alternatives where it is not, and protect vulnerable current occupants from renewed displacement.

Parliament should also examine how compensation rules account for inflation, delayed payment and coercive conditions. The goal should not be to treat every historical expropriation as illegitimate. It should establish a credible basis for review that recognises differences between cases without letting inherited procedures become a blanket defence of inherited outcomes.

A national framework will matter only if there is an institution capable of implementing it. Parliament should press for a dedicated, independent commission to review property and restitution claims nationwide through accessible local offices, with its decisions subject to judicial appeal.

The commission should have the authority to obtain official records, investigate contested transfers and determine remedies under a clearly defined legal mandate. Its independence is essential. Public institutions seeking to develop disputed land should not also have the final say over challenges to their ownership of it.

Parliament must also ensure that the commission has sufficient resources to operate and that compensation commitments are backed by realistic funding. A right to redress means little if the institution responsible for delivering it lacks the money or capacity to do so.

The commission should publish its procedures and regularly report on claims received, decisions issued and remedies implemented. That would allow parliament and affected communities to track progress, identify bottlenecks and determine where further legislative or administrative reforms are needed.

Credible process

The authorities inherited a difficult problem at a time when Syria urgently needs investment. They cannot resolve every property grievance overnight. But they can establish a credible process that gives citizens a route to redress and prevents reconstruction from entrenching disputed outcomes.

The new government did not issue Assad's expropriation decrees. It is, however, responsible for the contracts it signs and the development decisions it makes today. Moving ahead without credible review would turn an inherited grievance into a continuing policy choice.

Dummar's protest is another warning that construction cannot settle what institutions have left unresolved. Syria needs a national strategy that allows people to recover their rights and gives communities a meaningful say in the future of their neighbourhoods.

Without one, new investment risks making old losses permanent and leaving the government to defend the very injustices the transition was supposed to overcome.