Rebuilding Syria: The Case for Federalism as a Path Forward

The article discusses the challenges faced by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa in unifying Syria after civil war. It posits that adopting a federal system may be essential to address the country’s fragmentation and promote stability. Complications surrounding local autonomy, resource allocation, and historical context are vital to Sharaa’s governance strategy.

In seeking to unify Syria post-civil war, interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa faces a significant challenge due to the nation’s fragmentation. Averting the pitfalls of Bashar al-Assad’s centralized approach may necessitate adopting a federalist framework. This shift, however, implicates complex issues surrounding resource distribution and local legitimacy, especially given the country’s diverse tribal and sectarian allegiances.

Sharaa’s interim government possesses limited territorial control, notably in western cities and parts of the countryside. Sunni tribal loyalty varies in regions like the Euphrates Valley, while groups resisting integration into a new military structure complicate consolidation efforts. In addition, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and pro-Turkish militias pose significant obstacles to Sharaa’s aspirations, creating a discordant landscape that undermines his authority.

The fragmentation within Syria suggests a tension between a centralized governance model and local autonomy. While the Sunni population may gravitate toward Sharaa’s leadership, minority groups such as the Kurds and Druze express a preference for retaining their autonomy. This existing fragmentation contradicts Sharaa’s desire for centralized governance and complicates his efforts to create a cohesive political entity in Syria.

Historically, local communities fueled the early Syrian opposition, resulting in a lack of genuine national cohesion. Groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham represent fragmented local interests rather than a united front, hampering nationwide governance. Nonetheless, Sharaa’s ties to Damascus and local networks may bridge some gaps but remain limited by inadequate resources and bureaucratic challenges.

Sharaa’s emphasis on personal loyalty among HTS members raises concerns regarding the effectiveness of a centralized approach in a nation of millions. The previous regime’s flawed decentralization policies exacerbated internal conflicts and ultimately contributed to civil war, suggesting a need for genuine decentralization.

To prevent repeating past mistakes and to foster inclusive governance, the adoption of a federal system may be imperative. International stakeholders could incentivize this transition by tying sanctions relief to progress toward federalism, allowing for potential autonomy within various ethnic and sectarian regions, thereby addressing existing grievances.

Implementing federalism entails grappling with resource management issues. Challenges may arise in sharing rights over vital resources like oil and water among regions without triggering further conflict. Additionally, ensuring that decentralization does not lead to monopolistic practices by either regional authorities or the central government is essential for Syria’s recovery and long-term stability.

In conclusion, for Syria to emerge from its complex post-civil war reality, a federal approach may prove vital to promote reconciliation and stability. Addressing local grievances through decentralization and equitable resource distribution is crucial. Sharaa’s leadership must pivot from a centralized authority model towards one that embraces autonomy for diverse local communities, ultimately enabling a unified and peaceful Syria.

Original Source: www.washingtoninstitute.org