📰 Legitimacy in Question: Navigating Syria’s Dual Publics

The fall of Assad’s regime has not produced a unified vision for Syria’s future. Additionally, instead, two broad constituencies dominate public discourse. On one side are those who identify with “Assad’s Syria,” clinging to institutional continuity, residual privileges, and the social and economic networks that once sustained them. Their anxieties revolve around economic insecurity, loss of social status, and the fear that transitional justice will become a tool of revenge. On the other side are advocates of “Legitimate Syria,” who demand a clean break from the past, rooted in transitional justice, civilian governance, and accountability. They fear that old elites will simply recycle themselves into positions of power, hollowing out the promise of reform.

This duality is not abstract. It is anchored in lived political memory: loyalists recall the privileges and protections of the old order, while victims remember repression, imprisonment, and unfulfilled justice. The transitional administration must navigate these competing fears, building trust without aligning exclusively with either camp. Security Vacuums and Fragile Institutions The transition has been marred by hostilities, explosions, and armed clashes that expose the fragility of unified security control. Former armed factions continue to assert territorial and political dominance, raising urgent questions about the state’s monopoly on force. Civilian-led security policies governed by clear legal standards are desperately needed, yet the administration has often expanded the scope for violations instead.

Institutionally, the government has dissolved significant organs of the state, including armed forces and security services, without distinguishing between perpetrators of abuses and ordinary personnel. This has deepened the security vacuum and eroded public confidence. Civil society has proposed roadmaps for transitional justice and reconstruction, but these initiatives collide with shrinking political space and a lack of will at the highest levels. Voices of Critique Jalal al-Hamd of Justice for Life argues that the transitional government primarily represents the interests of the emerging regime and its allies in Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. He warns of authoritarian relapse, citing rash decisions, vague promises, and growing restrictions on freedoms. He points to missed opportunities—such as failing to capitalize on the lifting of sanctions in coastal areas and Suwayda—that could have marked turning points in governance.

For him, the government’s trajectory is worrying: it consolidates power rather than presenting a vision for recovery. Ammar Jallo of the Harmoon Centre describes the government as fundamentally non-representative, born of factional agreement rather than popular will. Its impact on daily life has been minimal,…