The national dialogue in Syria: A step forward or a concerning trajectory?

For many Syrians, the sight of hundreds of their fellow citizens walking through the People’s Palace in Damascus as they gathered to attend the national dialogue conference was surreal. Once a symbol of authority and exclusivity, only seen through rare and carefully curated state-released photographs, the palace was now the venue for what was billed as one of the most significant political processes in the country’s history. With Bashar al-Assad gone, this national dialogue was intended to chart Syria’s future, one that would have been unthinkable just three months earlier. However, the process and outcomes of the dialogue were flawed, left critical questions unanswered, and raised new concerns.

While the process is still in its initial phase with mixed outcomes, more red flags are being raised about its potential to achieve a cohesive Syria. The urgency to move forward without addressing essential foundational steps risks undermining the prospects of an inclusive and representative state. These challenges could be mitigated by creating inclusive groups to deliberate and draft a constitution, delegating authority to them, and ensuring that the process of debating the constitution and government structure is treated as an essential step in state-building. Public debate about constitutions and their modalities is widely regarded as a critical component in successful state-building efforts, helping to establish legitimacy, inclusivity, and long-term stability.

Significant efforts but flawed process

With around 900 participants, the dialogue took place in Damascus on Feb. 25, 2025, and was framed as an inclusive process, beginning with local consultations across cities and governorates throughout the country. These consultations were organized by a preparatory committee appointed by the interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, on Feb. 12. The committee was able to organize these consultations over a compressed timeframe despite logistical challenges in a country severely damaged by conflict, lacking major infrastructure, and facing serious connectivity problems. According to Maher Alloush, the head of the preparatory committee, thousands of participants took part in these preliminary dialogue workshops and sessions. However, concerns arose regarding the depth, authenticity, and rigor of the process, which concluded in just two weeks. Hind Kabawat, a member of the preparatory committee, defended the process, arguing that despite its imperfections, moving forward was a national necessity in a post-conflict country facing immense challenges.

Additionally, the sessions dedicated to Raqqa and al-Hasakah were held in Damascus. The organizing committee explained that this was due to the continued control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northeast, a reflection of how divided Syria is not only politically but also militarily. This choice raised concerns about the possibility of the new authorities continuing patterns of marginalization of the periphery, a practice reminiscent of the Assad regime, which for over five decades fostered deep resentment and grievances in these areas toward the central government. However, the question of the relationship between the center and the periphery transcends the Damascus-Raqqa divide.

Even if a military or political compromise between the Syrian national authorities and the SDF were to be reached, the challenges of inclusion, representation, and equitable governance for Syria’s remote and historically neglected areas would likely persist. While there were Kurdish and Druze participants in the national dialogue, they were not represented at the highest political levels. Some Kurdish and Druze figures who were absent criticized Sharaa’s approach and described the national government as a “one-color” group, further casting doubt on the dialogue’s legitimacy and raising concerns over whether it could truly represent Syria’s diverse society and political spectrum. On the day of the national dialogue conference, discussions and groups were organized around six key themes: transitional justice, the constitution, reforming and rebuilding state institutions, personal liberties, the role of civil society, and economic principles — all critical components for Syria’s future.

A parallel dialogue in Raqqa

While the Damascus dialogue sought to establish a roadmap for Syria’s future under the interim leadership, another dialogue with 200 participants was held just two days later in Raqqa, organized by the Rojava Center for Strategic Studies and led by the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) and the SDF, which still has the support of the United States in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS). This forum underscored the reality of Syria’s deepening political fragmentation, as it presented an alternative vision centered on decentralization and inclusive governance. Participants in Raqqa’s dialogue sought to ensure that Syria’s future political system accounts for the diversity of the northeast, advocating for local governance, self-administration, and broader representation of all ethnic and religious groups, including Kurds, Arabs, and Assyrians.

The exclusion of official Kurdish representatives of the DAANES and SDF from the Damascus dialogue fueled skepticism, creating an opening for the Raqqa dialogue to be positioned as a counterweight. Hassan al-Daghim, a member of the preparatory committee in Damascus, dismissed the SDF as unrepresentative of Syrians. The approach of the preparatory committee was to invite individuals rather than groups to participate in the dialogue, a step aimed at avoiding partisanship but one that also weakened participants’ ability to organize their demands and amplify their grievances collectively. This method effectively limited the influence of political blocs, making it difficult for any one faction to assert its priorities and leaving participants without the structural power needed to shape the process in a meaningful way.

The Raqqa dialogue highlighted the divide between competing visions of Syria’s future, with participants arguing that centralized authority in Damascus cannot address the needs of the country’s diverse regions. Discussions in Raqqa emphasized the importance of grassroots political engagement, security, stability, and the need for constitutional recognition of decentralized governance, contrasting with the more centralized approach promoted in Damascus. However, talks between Kurdish officials and Damascus that followed the fall of the Assad regime have shown positive momentum, indicating a possible path for reconciliation. The major rift between Damascus and the SDF remains whether the latter would join the new Syrian army umbrella as a unified bloc in the northeast, preserving some level of autonomy, or dissolve and fully integrate to maintain the army’s unity and cohesion.

The recent call by jailed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan for PKK militants to disarm and President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in withdrawing American troops from northeast Syria, further intensify pressure on the SDF to reach a compromise with Damascus.

Progress and gaps in the final statement

The final statement issued at the conclusion of the national dialogue in Damascus contained broad commitments to unity, equality, institutional reform, economic development, and the protection of rights. Notably, while pluralism and political parties were not explicitly mentioned, the statement emphasized individual freedom as an important value in Syrian society, particularly in light of the sacrifices made over the past decade. It stressed the need to protect freedom of thought and expression, the principle of equal citizenship, and the importance of civil society in shaping Syria’s post-conflict landscape.

The statement also highlighted the role of education and the importance of developing political life in Syria based on inclusivity, while stressing the rule of law and civil peace. However, it did not provide a vision for power-sharing or government formation. It also did not address the political identity of the state or the structure of governance, key issues that must be resolved prior to any meaningful transition.

The second point of the 18-point final statement condemned the Israeli expansion in the Syrian south and called for a full and unconditional withdrawal. It also rejected the “provocative” comments made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which included an offer of protection to the Druze. The statement called on the international and regional communities to assume responsibility for the security of Syria and to pressure Israel to stop its aggression and violations. While Israeli military actions in Syria have long been a concern, their inclusion in the dialogue’s final statement appeared to be a reactionary addition due to the recent escalation in the south and growing calls for the issue be addressed at the national level. Given that the document was primarily focused on Syria’s internal political future, this section seemed out of place but importantly reflected how this issue is becoming more central in the Syrian discourse, something that might redirect the discussion from core matters such as the shape of the Syrian government.

The response to the statement from many Syrians was lukewarm but supportive, signaling lowered expectations rather than strong endorsements. A major point of contention was that Sharaa framed the process as a consultative rather than a binding framework, prompting concerns over whether the dialogue would lead to concrete political outcomes.

On March 2, Sharaa announced the formation of a committee tasked with drafting a transitional constitutional framework for governance, rights, and institutional reforms during the transitional period. This move appears to be an attempt to formalize the outcomes of the national dialogue process and provide a legal basis for the evolving political landscape. However, questions remain regarding inclusivity, particularly as Sharaa seems to be the final decision-maker. The committee’s work is also framed as nonbinding, raising doubts about its ability to translate proposals into meaningful political change and the willingness of the current authority to share power in shaping Syria’s future.

A step forward or a missed opportunity?

For many Syrians, the worsening economic crisis and the urgency of daily survival have made any form of progress seem preferable to stagnation. While the dialogue in Damascus created an opportunity for discussion and sought to establish a unified national roadmap, its structural deficiencies and lack of inclusivity undermined its legitimacy. Meanwhile, the Raqqa dialogue provided an alternative vision, but without integration into a national framework, it risks remaining an isolated regional effort, or worse, paving the way toward further fragmentation or military confrontation.

The fundamental divide between these two dialogues reveals a broader national challenge: achieving inclusive governance and a political framework that accommodates Syria’s diverse regions and communities while preserving national unity. Without meaningful integration of the perspectives emerging from both processes, Syria risks further fragmentation and instability. The challenge now is whether the parties will build a bridge between these competing visions or allow a gap to persist and perhaps widen, leaving the competing viewpoints to continue on parallel, and possibly conflicting, trajectories. While the two dialogues reflect different governing visions, they are not inherently incompatible or irreconcilable. There remains a realistic and a serious opportunity for convergence between the Syrian government in Damascus and the SDF, particularly if both sides engage in sustained negotiations to bridge their political and military differences.

The transition process in Syria is flawed but moving forward. In a country devastated by war, poverty, and ongoing security challenges, positive steps should be encouraged. The United States should adopt a balanced approach, continuing support for counterterrorism efforts while allowing Syrians to lead their own negotiations and settle their own differences. This approach includes coordinating with both Damascus and the SDF for counterterrorism operations while encouraging both sides to converge, at least in countering ISIS.

High-level meetings between US Central Command (CENTCOM) and SDF leaders in January, amid ongoing tensions in northeast Syria, highlight Washington’s continued commitment to supporting the SDF in counterterrorism efforts against ISIS, at least for now. However, for long-term stability and regardless of the outlook for the American commitment in Syria, the US must also encourage broader negotiations that reduce tensions between the SDF and Damascus, ensuring that security cooperation does not further entrench divisions but instead facilitates a more unified approach to Syria’s future governance. A more organic and locally driven process — even if flawed — is more likely to produce a lasting and stable outcome.

 

Dr. Ibrahim al-Assil is a political scientist and Middle East scholar specializing in geopolitics, state evolution, and regional security. He is a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, and a Professorial Lecturer at George Washington University.

Photo by Izzettin Kasim/Anadolu via Getty Images