admin
Over the past months, discussions among Western policymakers regarding Syria’s transition have largely focused on security fragmentation and the challenge of integrating or dispersing armed groups. Transitional justice has often been viewed as the second major priority, particularly given the grievances, trauma, and demands for accountability that continue to fuel public dissatisfaction and despair
At the same time, Syria’s economy remains in a precarious position. Investors remain hesitant to enter a market that lacks an independent judiciary, transparent governance mechanisms, and stable legislative institutions. Sustainable economic recovery cannot be achieved in an environment where legal protections, regulatory certainty, and institutional accountability remain weak.
What is becoming increasingly evident, however, is the alarming rise in arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances. These practices threaten to undermine public trust in the transition and risk reproducing some of the very dynamics that Syrians sought to overcome.
A major weakness in the Western approach to Syria has been the failure to place meaningful conditions on political inclusivity, pluralism, and the construction of state institutions based on competence and merit. Instead, many key positions across state institutions have been filled by individuals whose qualifications and professional experience fall short of the requirements of effective governance. Political loyalty has too often been prioritised over expertise, institutional capacity, and meritocratic principles.
This approach is unlikely to serve Western objectives, including the long term stabilisation of Syria and the voluntary return of Syrian refugees. Stability cannot be built through security arrangements alone. It requires accountable institutions, inclusive governance, respect for fundamental rights, and a state capable of earning the trust of its citizens.
Rahaf Aldoughli
