Syria’s fourth parliamentary elections since the revolution of 2011 were limited to areas controlled by the Bashar Al-Assad regime, some 60 per cent of Syrian territory. Predictably, the ruling Baath Party won more than two thirds of the seats. Most Syrians will have expected roughly this result, knowing that the process was a mere formality that would change nothing in Syria’s political life.

Opposition spokespersons refused to recognise the elections, describing them as “a farce” and “a repetition of all previous elections which represent the ruling authority alone.” They also mentioned that they violate UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which calls on the Syrian people to form a transitional governing body to oversee the drafting of a new constitution followed by internationally monitored general elections.

According to official sources, the turnout on 15 July was 38 per cent. The figure must be grossly inflated, given that half the Syrian population is out of the country and unable to vote and that half of those who remain are under the voting age of 18. However, it is impossible to obtain an accurate count since the government refused to permit any form of independent monitoring.

The Syrian parliamentary elections are held every four years to fill the 250-member chamber. This year the Baath Party, which is headed by President Al-Assad, secured 169 seats. The opposition boycotted the polls and Syrians living outside the country or outside government-controlled areas, could not vote.

In a statement to the press while casting his vote, President Al-Assad said: “The People’s Assembly must be part of the developmental, transitional phase which relates to the role of government and its institutions, in general, and policies and outlooks… We can vest all our hopes in parliament, as it is the highest institution in the land.” Describing the electoral process as a “constitutional right”, he added, “we uphold the constitution which represents the essence of the state.”

The Syrian constitution, ratified in 2012, grants the president extensive authorities with respect to parliament. He can dismiss it, take over its legislative functions under certain conditions or when it is dismissed, issue acts of law and amend existing laws. He has the right to amend the constitution with a simple majority of parliamentary representatives. In short, both executive and legislative powers are vested in the person of the president, which the Syrian opposition rejects.

Given such a configuration of power, the Syrian parliament, as an institution, is “bereft of will,” as the President of the Syrian Negotiations Commission (SNC) Badr Jamous, told Al-Ahram Weekly. “These elections do not represent the people at all,” he said, “as long as the Syrian regime refuses to engage in a political solution in accordance with UN Resolution 2254, to amend the constitution and reform the law, to lift the grip of the security apparatus and the Presidential Palace over the conduct of elections, and to allow in impartial international electoral monitors.”

Reports by Syrian opposition centres that monitored the process relate some of the remarkable conditions under which the election took place. There were no lists of registered voters. The ballots contained only the names of the candidates of the Baath Party and its allies. The voting of military personnel was carried out under a complete blackout. They also noted instances of mass voting for workers and government employees. On the other hand, there were protest demonstrations in the Suwayda governorate against the elections and several polling stations were attacked by locals who smashed and burned the ballot boxes.

“Resolution 2254 clearly states that parliamentary and presidential elections must take place in the framework of the political process,” Abdel-Ahed Asteipho, a member of the National Coalition of Opposition Forces and head of the SNC’s elections committee, told the Weekly. This involves the formation of an inclusive transitional governing body, drafting and adopting a new constitution, and then free and fair elections held in accordance with the new constitution’s provisions, under UN supervision, and in a manner that meets the highest standards of transparency and accountability and in which all Syrians can participate, including those residing abroad.

“The Syrian parliamentary elections met none of these conditions,” he continued. “The current circumstances in Syria do not allow for genuinely free elections at any level. The current legal structure offers no guarantees for the conduct of a proper and independent electoral process. The security situation is unstable and not conducive to such elections. Media freedoms are non-existent, so the fourth estate cannot expose fraud, violations and electoral meddling on the part of the security apparatus and Presidential Palace. There is no political plurality and competition whatsoever.”

The Syrian opposition believes that the elections are important to Al-Assad personally because, theoretically, they are the last round to be held during his tenure which ends in 2028. Under the current constitution he is not allowed to run for another term. The opposition suspects that the newly elected parliament will be put to the service of amending the constitution to enable the perpetuation of the Al-Assad regime. Syrians for Truth and Justice (STJ) recalls such a scenario in 2000 when the People’s Assembly amended Constitutional Article 83 to lower the minimum age from 40 to 34 to enable Bashar to run for president. It was passed in minutes.

Twelve years later, parliament rescinded that amendment, restoring the minimum candidacy age to 40. The only political significance of the elections is to circumvent a negotiating process to resolve the Syrian crisis. As the parliament is entirely toothless, its primary function is to serve the president and those loyal to him and the ruling party. It will play no role in remedying the country’s collapsed economy or improving the standards of living of the Syrian people.

The international community shares the opinion of the opposition. Western officials concerned with the Syrian question also questioned the credibility of the elections, noting how they were boycotted by the opposition and criticising the failure of the process to meet the minimum standards of transparency and fairness. The officials also noted that it violated UN Resolution 2254, which is binding to the Syrian regime. They observed that the elections demonstrated how the regime in Damascus was the same as ever, clinging to its customary ways of pushing through its lists of supporters.

The general conviction prevails among Syrians that, as things stand, parliament will never change in either form or substance. It will remain powerless, unable to hold the government to account, and incapable of leading crucial decision-making processes. It will therefore continue to function as always, echoing praise of the government’s achievements and rubber-stamping the president’s decisions.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 25 July, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly