Syria’s New Constitutional Declaration: A Step Toward Islamist Instability?

The signing of Syria’s new constitutional declaration by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa during Ramadan marks a significant yet contentious moment in the country’s turbulent history. After years of war and dictatorship, the document seeks to establish a framework for governance during a transitional period. But beneath the surface, it raises questions about Syria’s future, the role of Islam in its governance, and the treatment of its diverse population. It also brings into play the radicalization of Syria, especially given the interim president’s past with the ISIS and other radical groups as well as strong alliance with the Muslim brotherhood back Turkish government.

The temporary constitution, drafted just three months after Sharaa’s Islamist group led the offensive that toppled President Bashar al-Assad, cements the country’s identity under Islamist rule for the next five years and has not undergone any consultative process. While it maintains some elements of the previous constitution—such as requiring the president to be Muslim—it shifts the legal foundation, declaring Islamic jurisprudence as “the main source of legislation” rather than merely “a main source.” This subtle yet profound change has sparked concerns about the direction Syria’s legal system will take.

On the surface, the new constitution upholds democratic ideals, promising judicial independence, the separation of powers, and guarantees of women’s rights and press freedom. Sharaa himself has framed it as a move away from oppression and toward justice. Constitutional expert Abdul Hamid al-Awak, a member of the drafting committee, has claimed that the declaration strikes a balance between security and freedoms, addressing concerns about the concentration of power that defined Assad’s rule.

Yet, the reality is far more complex. While the president’s power is ostensibly limited, he still wields substantial influence. The transitional government’s People’s Assembly, which holds legislative authority, will have two-thirds of its members appointed by a committee selected by the president and the remaining third chosen by the president himself. This raises alarms about the true extent of executive control, as well as the potential for cronyism and unchecked authority. It also brings into question gender balance, if any, in this new legislative authority. Taliban 2.0 which promised all kinds of protects for women have now become one of the most repressive governments for women worldwide.

The aftermath of Assad’s fall has been marred by violence, with allegations of sectarian revenge attacks by Sunni Islamist forces against Assad’s Alawite sect. Reports indicate that nearly 1,500 civilians have been killed in clashes, fueling fears that Syria is merely trading one form of authoritarian rule for another. Sharaa has vowed to hold perpetrators accountable and maintain civil peace, but whether these promises translate into action remains to be seen.

The international response to the constitutional declaration has been mixed. UN special envoy Geir Pedersen cautiously welcomed the move as a step toward reestablishing the rule of law, acknowledging its potential to fill a legal vacuum. However, the Kurdish-led administration in northeastern Syria has outright rejected the document, arguing that it disregards Syria’s diverse ethnic and religious makeup. The exclusion of Kurdish representation in the transitional government only reinforces concerns that Syria’s new rulers may not be as inclusive as they claim. There is also a significant question about the future of Syria’s Druze population.

The rise of Islamist governance in Syria brings to mind the experiences of Pakistan and Yemen, two countries that have struggled with radicalization and the political entrenchment of Islamist factions. In Pakistan, years of religious influence in politics have resulted in increasing sectarian violence, state-sponsored intolerance, and a weakening of democratic institutions. Yemen, meanwhile, has been torn apart by radicalized factions vying for control, leading to prolonged instability and humanitarian crises. Syria must be cautious not to fall into a similar cycle, where Islamist rule paves the way for extremism and further division rather than unity and governance reform.

As the country navigates this uncertain period, the world is watching. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has underscored the importance of building a truly inclusive and democratic Syria, warning that the country’s future remains precarious. Sharaa’s government now faces the critical test of proving that its commitment to justice is more than rhetoric. If the transition is to succeed, it must ensure that minority rights are protected, governance is genuinely representative, and the rule of law is upheld for all Syrians.

The path forward for Syria is fraught with challenges. Will this new constitutional framework lead to a more just and democratic nation, or is it merely setting the stage for another era of Islamist-dominated rule? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: the Syrian people deserve a government that upholds their rights and respects their diverse identities, not another regime that suppresses them. If anything, this new constitution is paving the way for a federated Syria, which will not be able to remain united.