The rise of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Syria reveals tensions between inclusive rhetoric and centralizing actions. HTS leaders suggest presidential governance while disregarding local autonomy and emphasizing sharia law. Doubts arise about the role of appointees in constitutional negotiations, risking exclusion of minority voices. Historical patterns of Islamist governance underscore the urgent need for consensus-driven dialogue to avert further conflict and ensure a stable political framework in Syria.
The recent political landscape in Syria has shifted with the ascendance of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its allies, dominating Damascus and government institutions. While HTS leaders advocate for inclusivity toward various minority groups within Syria through their public statements, underlying concerns arise regarding their vision for governance. HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, has openly suggested a future presidential election, which signals an inclination towards a presidential system, a choice often determined through extensive negotiations with political factions.
HTS has preemptively addressed potential constitutional issues, ruling out federalism and local autonomy in favor of a centralized governance model. This approach, framed as a unifying strategy, is contentious among segments of the population who advocate for localized autonomy post-conflict. Furthermore, HTS has emphasized the role of Islamic sharia law in governance, indicating a shift in societal norms, including educational reforms that eliminate Darwinian concepts.
Internationally and domestically, there is skepticism regarding HTS’s assertion of autonomy from external influence in constitutional discussions, particularly in light of the UN’s contentious involvement in the Syrian crisis. HTS has acknowledged that a constitution might take years to formulate, generally acceptable in post-conflict states but problematic if appointees—often armed group representatives—lead negotiations instead of elected individuals. The shift towards majoritarian decision-making poses risks for minority inclusion, undermining the fragile balance that is essential for national unity.
Historically, Islamist movements have exhibited tendencies to dominate political discussions, potentially repeating the cycle of conflict witnessed in nations like Egypt and Iraq. The unique context of Syria amplifies these risks, as HTS strives to impose its vision of governance amidst a tumultuous societal landscape, leading to concerns that negotiations may falter if HTS does not embrace a genuine, consensus-driven approach.
The context surrounding Syria’s political landscape involves the rise of HTS following their control of Damascus and government structures. This shift presents complex dynamics due to HTS’s stated intentions of inclusivity juxtaposed with their actions indicating a pre-determined governance framework. With ongoing territorial divisions and internal strife, the manner in which HTS navigates constitutional negotiations, relationships with minority groups, and the influences of Islamic law reflect broader challenges faced by post-conflict nations in establishing stable governance. The historical precedents of similar movements further accentuate the urgent need for inclusive dialogue.
In summary, while HTS portrays a commitment to inclusivity within a projected framework of governance, significant challenges lie ahead. Their inclination towards a dominant presidential system, rejection of federalism, and emphasis on sharia as a guiding principle could alienate critical segments of the population. Furthermore, the potential exclusion of elected representatives from the constitutional drafting process raises the specter of majoritarianism undermining minority rights. For a stable future, it is imperative that HTS engages in constructive dialogue, fostering genuine consensus around Syria’s governance.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
