The article discusses the necessity of federalism in rebuilding Syria under interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa. It highlights the challenges posed by sectarian divisions and local loyalties within a fragmented landscape. Sharaa’s focus on centralization contradicts the needs for inclusive governance and resource sharing, raising critical questions regarding effective political reconstruction.
The rebuilding of Syria may necessitate a federal structure to promote national reconciliation. Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa faces considerable challenges, as the country is deeply divided by tribal and sectarian loyalties honed during a protracted civil war. While Sharaa’s group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), represents the Sunni Arab majority, his preference for a centralized system conflicts with the needs for genuine representation and resource management.
Syria’s fragmented reality poses a significant hurdle for Sharaa’s vision of unity. His administration currently controls limited areas in western Syria, while various factions resist integration into a new army. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces are skeptical, and other groups maintain control over their territories, undermining Sharaa’s centralization ambitions.
The diverse political landscape indicates that many local communities, including Kurds and Druze, prefer self-governance over integration into a central system dominated by HTS. Even regions celebrating Sharaa’s leadership, such as Alawite areas, are cautious and protective of their interests, hinting at the complex power dynamics present in the country.
Historically, local factions have formed the backbone of Syria’s opposition, complicating the emergence of a cohesive national strategy. Notably, HTS emerged as a significant player due to its nationwide engagement during the conflict, but its designation as a terrorist entity prevents it from gaining international acceptance as a representative force.
The personal connections of officials appointed by Sharaa offer some promise for future governance, yet lack of funding disrupts effective transition and rebuilding efforts. To enhance legitimacy, a departure from Assad’s centralization strategy is necessary to secure broader support from various regions, particularly the Kurds and other minorities.
While federalism offers a means to bridge the sectarian divide and allow for a more equitable power distribution, it also raises concerns over resource allocation critical to circulating power efficiently in post-war Syria. Difficult discussions surrounding natural resource rights, particularly water and hydrocarbons, will be imperative in any federal arrangement, with past regional conflicts serving as cautionary tales for governance.
In summary, for federalism to succeed in Syria, it must encompass all regions, not merely appease minority groups. Autonomy for local governance will be pivotal to avoid a stagnation in peace and progress. A carefully negotiated resource-sharing agreement must ensure balance, preventing central monopolization that could exacerbate existing tensions and conflicts.
In conclusion, the restoration of Syria post-civil war may hinge on adopting a federal system that addresses both the complex local dynamics and the necessity for equitable resource management. Ahmed al-Sharaa must navigate the deeply entrenched loyalties and desires for autonomy while ensuring inclusive governance. The balance between central authority and local autonomy is essential to avoid repeating past mistakes and to foster long-term stability in the region.
Original Source: www.washingtoninstitute.org
