Why Decentralisation Matters in Syria?
Decentralisation matters in Syria because the country’s modern political history has been shaped by structural challenges that have repeatedly undermined political legitimacy, democratic governance, and peaceful coexistence among its diverse communities.
Syria took shape as a state following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire under arrangements largely determined by the colonial powers, particularly France and Great Britain, rather than through an inclusive political process reflecting the consent of the populations incorporated into the new state. The French Mandate played a decisive role in shaping Syria’s territorial boundaries and political institutions.
These borders brought together distinct regions and communities with diverse ethnic, religious, and cultural identities within a single mandated territory that later became the state of Syria. The principal components of Syrian society include Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Alawites, Druze, and Syriac Christians. Kurds, Alawites, and Druze each have distinct geographic concentrations and longstanding historical ties to their respective regions. During the French Mandate, several regional administrations, known as states, were established, including the Alawite State, the State of Aleppo, and the State of Jabal Druze. These entities were later dissolved into the Syrian state.
Click and zoom to view a 1935 map documenting the demographic distribution of Syria's ethnic and religious communities produced by the Topographical Bureau of the French Troops in the Levant. Source: France. Bureau topographique des troupes françaises du Levant (1935). Syrie & Liban. Répartition par races et religions des divers groupements habitant les Etats sous mandat français. Digitised by Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF Gallica).
The Kurdish experience provides a particularly important dimension to this history. The territorial settlement that followed the First World War had a profound impact on the Kurds, whose historic homeland, Kurdistan, was divided and incorporated, without Kurdish consent, into the newly established states of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Across these states, Kurdish populations subsequently faced varying forms of repression, discrimination, and forced assimilation, as well as, in some cases, mass atrocities amounting to genocide, most notably during the Anfal campaign under Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. The division of the Kurdish homeland and people among several states created a longstanding political grievance, while the incorporation of part of the Kurdish land and its population into Syria added an unresolved dimension to the country’s questions of political representation, identity, and self-governance.
Following the withdrawal of French troops and Syria’s declaration of independence in 1946, self-governance and meaningful political representation remained largely absent from the country’s highly centralised political system. This became particularly pronounced after the Ba'ath Party, with its Arab nationalist ideology, came to power in 1963. Self-governance and political pluralism increasingly came to be treated as taboo under the Assad regime although members of the Alawite community played a prominent role in the state’s military and security structures. The suppression of decentralisation and the concentration of political power in the central state contributed to prolonged authoritarian rule and repression and, ultimately, to periods of armed conflict, particularly after 2011.
Since independence in 1946, Syria has experienced prolonged periods of authoritarian rule, which under the Assad family developed into decades of highly centralised governance. Political power became concentrated in the central state, while meaningful political pluralism, local self-government, and democratic participation remained severely restricted. International organisations and human rights bodies repeatedly documented widespread repression, arbitrary detention, restrictions on political freedoms, discrimination, and other serious human rights violations. The popular uprising that began in 2011 and the subsequent armed conflict exposed the consequences of this exclusionary political system, contributing to one of the gravest humanitarian and human rights crises of the twenty-first century.
The developments following 2011 further demonstrated the persistence of Syria’s unresolved question of self-governance. Syrian Kurds established the Rojava cantons and subsequently, together with Arab and Syriac communities, developed the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES). Yet their demands for constitutionally recognised self-governance continued to face political and military pressure. The fall of the Assad regime in 2024 did not resolve this issue. Under the HTS-led authorities that took power in Damascus, Kurdish demands for self-governance continued to face resistance, while similar centralising and coercive policies also affected the Druze community and the emerging autonomous governance arrangements in Suwayda, as well as the Alawite community. This continuity suggests that the challenge lies not only with individual rulers but also with Syria’s deeply entrenched model of centralised governance and the absence of durable constitutional mechanisms for meaningful local self-governance.
These historical experiences suggest that sustainable peace cannot depend solely on changing political leaders while preserving governance structures that repeatedly concentrate power in the hands of a narrow central authority. Lasting stability requires institutions capable of accommodating Syria’s diverse social fabric, enabling meaningful political participation, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring that communities have an effective voice in decisions affecting their future and the ability to manage their own local affairs.
In this context, different forms of decentralisation offer a potential framework for addressing key structural causes of conflict. By distributing political and administrative authority, strengthening local democratic institutions, and enabling communities to participate more directly in governing their own affairs, decentralisation can help reconcile Syria’s diversity with territorial integrity and political cohesion. Properly designed constitutional arrangements can strengthen state legitimacy by ensuring that governance rests not only on sovereignty but also on meaningful participation, representation, and public consent.
The central question, however, is not whether power should simply be transferred from the centre to the regions, but how governance can be organised in ways that preserve Syria’s territorial integrity while recognising its political, ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity. Different constitutional models, including administrative, political, fiscal, asymmetrical, federal, and hybrid forms of decentralisation, present distinct opportunities and challenges.
The choice of a suitable model must therefore not be predetermined. Rather, it needs to emerge through rigorous comparative research, careful constitutional analysis, and inclusive dialogue with Syria’s diverse communities, particularly the Kurds, Alawites, and Druze, whose regions and communities have been particularly affected by the country’s centralised system of governance. Such a process can help identify governance arrangements that are both democratically legitimate and practically workable. A constitutional framework developed through broad participation and mutual consent is more likely to strengthen democracy, protect minority rights, reduce the risk of renewed conflict, and prevent the re-emergence of authoritarian central rule. Dispersing political power and establishing effective checks and balances can help prevent excessive concentration of authority and contribute to a more stable and peaceful Syria.
DPD Framework for Research and Dialogue on Syria’s Decentralisation Options
Objective
The Decentralisation Program for Peace and Democracy (DPD) seeks to identify and develop governance arrangements that can promote peace, democracy, human rights, political inclusion, and long-term stability in Syria while preserving the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Rather than advocating a predetermined constitutional model, DPD Program promotes an evidence-based and participatory process through which the most appropriate forms of decentralisation can be identified.
This framework is built upon two complementary dimensions: Academic Research and Stakeholder Dialogue.
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Purpose
To examine, compare, and evaluate decentralisation models that may be suitable for Syria using rigorous academic research and comparative international experience.
Research Questions
The research programme will seek to answer questions including:
Why has highly centralised governance repeatedly failed to produce lasting peace and democratic stability in Syria?
What structural factors have contributed to recurring conflict and political exclusion?
Which forms of decentralisation have been most effective in divided societies?
Which institutional arrangements best protect minority rights while maintaining national unity?
Which governance structures strengthen political legitimacy and democratic participation?
Which constitutional safeguards prevent the re-emergence of authoritarian rule?
Which decentralisation arrangements are most compatible with Syria's historical, demographic, geographic, political, and social realities?
Comparative Research
The programme will examine relevant international experiences, including:
Switzerland
Canada
Belgium
Germany
Spain
United Kingdom
Bosnia and Herzegovina
United Arab Emirates
Kurdistan Region of Iraq
It will also examine governance experiences that have emerged within Syria, including different forms of local administration and self-governance, to identify lessons that may inform future constitutional development.
Comparative Evaluation Framework
Each governance model will be assessed against common criteria, including:
Peacebuilding and conflict prevention
Democratic participation
Political legitimacy
Protection of minority rights
Human rights
Rule of law
Public administration
Fiscal governance
Local accountability
Security governance
National cohesion
Constitutional stability
Prevention of authoritarian concentration of power
STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
Purpose
To complement academic research through inclusive dialogue that reflects the perspectives and aspirations of Syria's diverse communities and institutions.
Participants
Dialogue includes representatives from:
Syrian communities
Civil society organisations
Local councils
Women's organisations
Youth organisations
Constitutional and legal experts
Political parties
Academics
Religious and community leaders
International constitutional specialists
Dialogue Themes
Dialogue explores questions including:
What governance challenges do different communities experience under centralised rule?
Which powers should remain with the central government?
Which powers should be exercised locally?
How should natural resources and public revenues be managed?
How should local security and policing be organised?
What constitutional safeguards are necessary to protect minority rights?
How can decentralisation strengthen, rather than weaken, Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity?
Which decentralisation models are viewed as legitimate and acceptable by Syria's diverse communities?
Integrating Research and Dialogue
DPD Program views academic research and stakeholder dialogue as mutually reinforcing processes.
Academic research provides comparative evidence, constitutional analysis, and policy options.
Stakeholder dialogue evaluates those options in light of Syria's political realities, historical experiences, and the aspirations of its diverse communities.
Together, these processes enable governance proposals to be grounded in both empirical evidence and public legitimacy.
Expected Outputs
The combined research and dialogue process may produce:
Comparative research reports
Constitutional analysis papers
Policy briefs
Stakeholder consultation reports
Governance options papers
Public opinion findings
Recommendations for constitutional reform
Models of political, administrative, fiscal, and security decentralisation suitable for Syria
Guiding Principle
DPD Program does not begin with a predetermined constitutional solution. Instead, it begins with a guiding principle:
The most appropriate form of decentralisation for Syria should emerge from rigorous comparative research, careful constitutional analysis, and inclusive dialogue among Syria's diverse communities and stakeholders.
The objective is not simply to redistribute political power, but to identify governance arrangements capable of strengthening democracy, protecting human rights, accommodating Syria's diversity, preventing the re-emergence of authoritarian rule, preserving national unity, and creating the institutional foundations for lasting peace.