After the radical Islamist militias overthrew the regime led by former Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad on 8 December, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, commander of the main militia faction Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), became the de facto ruler in Damascus.
Western and Arab diplomatic delegations flew to Damascus to greet him, hear his plans, and receive anticipated reassurances. Al-Sharaa’s position at the head of Syria’s Interim Government has now been made official, as on 29 January the militia faction leaders appointed him the country’s president, signalling the beginning of the transitional phase.
Al-Sharaa then delivered his first speech to the Syrian people. His long reluctance to address them directly, while granting lengthy interviews to Western media outlets, had been a main source of criticism and had fed suspicions of his intentions.
Many had anticipated that the speech would be given on 29 January during a victory celebration attended by the commanders of the militias that toppled Al-Assad. Instead, the event was not broadcast live, and news was only relayed afterwards in edited footage showing excerpts of speeches made by each commander who took to the podium.
A spokesman then read out the “Declaration of the Victory of the Syrian Revolution,” which included the decision to appoint Al-Sharaa president for the transitional phase and authorising him to form a Legislative Council that would serve until a permanent constitution is adopted.
The declaration also reiterated previous measures, such as the dissolution of the Baath Party and allied parties and of the parliament elected under Al-Assad last year. In addition to dissolving the Syrian Army and security apparatuses affiliated with the Al-Assad regime, the declaration formally dissolved all the anti-regime militia factions and rebel groups, saying that they would be merged into new national military and security bodies.
The closed and exclusive celebratory function, the junta-like elevation of victorious comrades, and the brief press release about the ceremonies came as a disappointment to many Syrian activists and politicians. In addition to being excluded at this crucial stage, many fear that exclusion could become the dominant feature of the transitional process.
Others, however, dismissed such concerns. The HTS leader’s designation as president was a foregone conclusion, they said, and the hasty announcement was needed to fill an official void. It enabled Al-Sharaa to meet the Emir of Qatar the following day and then fly off to meet the Saudi crown prince in Riyadh and then head off to Turkey on Tuesday to meet the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. During the closed event on 29 January, Al-Sharaa spoke of the priorities of the transitional phase: the need to fill the power vacuum at home, to preserve the civil peace, and to rebuild the Syrian economy. The next day, 30 January, he delivered his long-awaited speech to the Syrian people, addressing it to men and women, displaced persons, refugees in camps, the wounded and injured, the families of martyrs and missing persons, and all revolutionaries and activists.
It was an unexpectedly short speech – barely five minutes – yet it was packed with emotive messages, condemning the crimes of the Al-Assad regime, praising the sacrifices of the people and the revolutionaries who had defied and overcame the regime, and promising a brighter future for Syria.
Al-Sharaa said he had consulted legal experts, whose identities he did not disclose, to ensure that decisions taken during the transitional phase would conform to legal norms. While president during this critical stage in Syria’s history, he said, he would act not as the ruler but as a servant of the Syrian people.
He stressed that the transitional process would be inclusive, embracing all Syrians at home and abroad, excluding and marginalising no one, and based on freedom and dignity.
He laid out the steps of this process, though without specifying a timeline. They would include the formation of a government representing Syria’s diversity that would be tasked with building new national institutions and laying the groundwork for free and fair elections.
He would soon announce a preparatory committee charged with selecting a Legislative Council that would temporarily fill the void created by the dissolution of the previous parliament, he said. He would also form another committee to prepare for the Syrian National Dialogue Conference (SNDC), which, originally scheduled to take place in January, would serve as a platform for the exchange of views and ideas on a political programme.
Al-Sharaa’s use of the latter term suggests that he already has a vision for the new system of government in Syria. It will probably be a presidential, unitary, and centralised state, in contrast to the parliamentary systems adopted after post-war transitions elsewhere. This type of system will likely conflict with the aspirations of significant regional elements in Syria who envision decentralised government with considerable regional autonomy.
Presumably such matters will be open for debate in the SNDC before the adoption of a constitutional declaration to serve as the legal framework for the transition.
Al-Sharaa promised “transitional justice” to ensure that those responsible for the bloodshed in Syria would be held accountable. He also asserted the unified state’s authority over the whole of Syrian territory, probably addressed primarily to the northeast which remains under the control of Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
He pledged to build strong, competent, and just state institutions free from corruption and to foster a strong economy that creates jobs, improves living conditions, and provides essential services. He concluded with an appeal to all Syrians to participate in building a new nation ruled by justice and “consultation” (shura) and characterised by stability, peace, and prosperity.
Al-Sharaa’s speech was greeted by conflicting opinions. While it reassured many former sceptics who held that the transitional process put Syria on the right path, others raised questions regarding its legitimacy and sequencing. Some held that the Legislative Council should have been formed first in order to elect Al-Sharaa, instead of his being appointed by a group of militia leaders without consulting civilian revolutionary forces.
Some critics picked up on Al-Sharaa’s use of the term “shura,” favoured by many Islamists, instead of democracy. Others countered that he had nevertheless used democratic concepts such as a representative Legislative Council and free and fair elections.
Perhaps all would agree that the real tests lie ahead. What counts now is not so much how the transition is ordered but the degree of genuine inclusiveness, diversity, and participation the Syrians will see in the forthcoming government.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 6 February, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: