Following HTS’s control in Syria, the group claims to embrace inclusivity towards various minority groups while simultaneously indicating a preference for a presidential governance model. Concerns arise over HTS’s rejection of federalism, rapid changes to Islamic law application, and the exclusion of the UN from the constitutional process, all suggesting a predestined path leading to potential conflict and division. A consensus-building approach is urgently advocated to mitigate these risks and ensure representation of all Syrian communities.
In the aftermath of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its allies taking control of Syria, the government has embarked on a process of establishing a new order, characterized by an ostensibly inclusive approach towards various ethnic and religious minorities, including Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Kurds. Despite this rhetoric, the leadership, particularly Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammed al-Jolani), appears to have predetermined the country’s governance structure, favoring a presidential system while minimizing negotiations with other political factions.
This inclination raises concerns regarding the future of decentralization and local autonomy, as HTS has rejected any form of federalism in favor of a centralized approach to maintain national unity. Critics argue that such centralization could exacerbate existing divisions rather than heal them. Notably, HTS has made clear its stance on the role of Islamic law, espousing that sharia should govern, which has provoked apprehension among many Syrians due to rapid changes being implemented, such as alterations to the education curriculum.
Furthermore, HTS has excluded the United Nations from a significant role in the constitutional processes, a sentiment echoed by many who believe the organization has been ineffective. They project a prolonged timeline for establishing a permanent constitution, with the possibility that constitutional negotiations may be dominated by appointees more representative of armed groups rather than an elected populace. HTS has indicated that discussions will be governed by majority voting, rather than striving for a consensus, an approach that could endanger minority rights in the volatile political climate.
The experiences of other Islamist movements in the region warn of the dangers of dominating constitutional dialogue without inclusive representation. Historical precedents indicate that sidelining other groups in constitutional matters often results in violence and unrest. To prevent repeating these patterns, the call for a truly inclusive constitutional negotiation process is imperative. It is crucial that HTS is persuaded to genuinely engage in forming a government structure through collaborative efforts, ensuring that the voices of all Syrians are heard in determining the nation’s future.
The situation in Syria has been volatile since the onset of the civil war, marked by the emergence of various factions vying for power. Following the control of Damascus by HTS, the group has attempted to establish its authority while addressing the complex ethnic and religious landscape of Syria. Despite claims of inclusivity, there is rising concern about HTS’s intentions regarding the governance model and the potential implications for minority groups within the nation, as well as the handling of Islamic law in public life. The historical context of governance in similar regions adds weight to fears about a return to conflict if the current approach leads to exclusion and centralization of power.
In conclusion, while HTS projects an image of inclusivity in its governance plans for Syria, there are significant indications that it seeks to maintain control over the political process with minimal input from other factions. This top-down approach raises alarm about the potential for increased division within the country. For a sustainable peace and unity, it is essential that HTS embraces a more collaborative and inclusive process, allowing for a genuine representation of all societal factions to foster consensus and thus reduce the risk of future conflict. As Syria navigates this critical juncture, careful attention must be paid to ensuring that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
