Enab Baladi – Hussam al-Mahmoud

The successive objections did not stop the path of the People’s Assembly elections recently conducted by the Syrian regime, presenting them as a complementary procedure for the political and constitutional process in Syria, despite an absolute belief among international and UN parties that these elections do not constitute a gateway to the solution in Syria.

On July 18, the Supreme Judicial Committee for Elections announced the results of the vote, which started on the 15th of the same month, with the participation of Syrian regime’s president Bashar al-Assad.

The election results were unsurprising, with the Baath party leading with 178 seats out of 250, reinforcing its leadership of the country despite the abolition of Article 8 of the 2012 Constitution. This was indicated by al-Assad in the Baath party elections that took place months ago, where he repeatedly emphasized the Baath party’s role as the leader of the state without Article 8.

These elections took place while the Constitutional Committee remains stuck at a fixed point without new rounds. Attempts to rejuvenate it and the calls for meetings have not led to parties meeting in Geneva or elsewhere.

In a briefing before the Security Council about the situation in Syria at the end of May, the UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen referred to the People’s Assembly elections in regime-controlled areas and the municipal elections in northeastern Syria (scheduled for August), clarifying that they are not a substitute for a comprehensive political process leading to a new consensual Syrian constitution, in accordance with the elections referred to in Resolution 2254.

On a local level, the election participation was limited to regime-controlled areas or most of them. As-Suwayda, which has been protesting against the regime since August 2023, opposed the elections, discarding the ballot boxes into garbage containers, and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) opposed it, citing its possession of a social contract specific to the areas it governs.

Germany has also stated its opposition to elections in Syria multiple times, as they do not serve the internationally agreed political solution path, which is supposed to pass through Security Council Resolution 2254.

Reinforcing the status quo: Reproducing the Constitutional Committee

On July 10, the German envoy to Syria, Stefan Schneck, stated that his country does not support holding elections in Syria at the present time, emphasizing that free and fair elections are an integral part of resolving the conflict and establishing peace in Syria, but the conditions are not yet suitable.

According to Schneck, via “X”, Germany supports the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 2254 calling for elections after the adoption of a new constitution, but urges all parties to facilitate a Syrian-led and owned political process to agree on a new constitution and implement Resolution 2254.

Holding elections on Syrian soil at this time will not advance the political process but rather reinforce the status quo of prolonged conflict and division, according to the German envoy.

He also called on all parties to refrain from any steps that would threaten the prospects for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria and a transition of power as called for in Resolution 2254.

On July 15, coinciding with the start of the elections, Schneck said that the “Syrian Parliament” elections do not meet the standards of free and fair elections according to international norms, pointing out that ongoing conflict and political exclusion hinder the representation of the Syrian people’s will, reiterating Berlin’s commitment to Resolution 2254 and its call for a Syrian-led political process that includes drafting a new constitution and creating conditions for credible elections.

Ayman al-Dusouki, a researcher at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies, who focuses part of his work on local governance in Syria, explained to Enab Baladi that the Syrian regime is working through the People’s Assembly elections to reinforce a status quo and exploit it politically.

Regarding the impact of these elections on the stalled work of the Constitutional Committee, the researcher clarified that the issue is measured from two angles. The first relates to affirming the Syrian regime’s approach to what it sees as the “solution to the Syrian crisis”, as an internal “Syrian-Syrian” path without external interference and through existing state institutions.

Moreover, the regime has the option to extend al-Assad’s mandate outside any political solution according to UN legitimacy, i.e., Resolution 2254, thus continuing to disrupt the Constitutional Committee meetings in their current form.

From another angle, the issue may relate to the regime’s conditions for reactivating the Constitutional Committee and its vision for an acceptable political solution, i.e., pushing for the reformation of the Constitutional Committee to boost its advantage within it as a percentage and weakening its opponents, allowing it to produce a new constitution that gives al-Assad the chance to extend his mandate and grants him “external legitimacy”, according to the researcher.

The regime is not concerned with the UN and international criticisms surrounding the People’s Assembly elections. From its point of view, the elections have their circumstances and objectives, which can be summarized as tools to reproduce its authority and confirm its representation of the Syrian state, while also sending a message to the outside that it is strong and has legitimacy.

Ayman al-Dusouki, Researcher at Omran Center for Strategic Studies

Where is the Constitutional Committee today?

On May 30, Pedersen said that resuming the work of the Constitutional Committee would bring the Syrian parties back to the same common room to address the fundamental issues that have been driving the conflict.

During his briefing to the Security Council at that time, he expressed openness to any alternative location other than Geneva, enjoying Syrian parties’ and the host’s agreement, stressing the continuing efforts to find an alternative place, with the ongoing appeal to resume sessions in Geneva, calling on parties to prepare substantive sessions and constitutional proposals.

The UN envoy clarified that these initiatives open doors to political solutions but are not sufficient by themselves; there is consensus that there is no military solution to the conflict. The situation in Syria is indeed serious, and the current slow and fragmented approach will not be sufficient to reverse the tide and turn things in the desired direction, and containment and mitigation strategies will not contribute to ending instability and the unpredictability of situations in Syria.

Pedersen’s statements were preceded by persistent attempts to resume the Constitutional Committee meetings without achieving tangible results on the ground. The session scheduled for the period between April 22 and 26 did not take place, after Pedersen invited it. He later noted that his best efforts with others to address these conditions through concrete measures from both sides have “not yet resulted in the required changes”.

During an interview with Al-Arabiya channel on May 8, and regarding the work of the Constitutional Committee, the UN envoy stated that his efforts to treat Geneva as a temporary platform until an agreement on an alternative was met by the Syrian regime’s objection, indicating that the obstacles are clear. The “government” (referring to the Syrian regime) does not want to come to Geneva because of Moscow’s objection.

He pointed out that no one thought the Constitutional Committee alone would solve the “Syrian crisis”, but it could open the door to important issues that were subjects of discussion. This work has stopped over the past two years due to issues unrelated to Syria, but because the Russians do not want the Syrians to meet in Geneva as they are dissatisfied with Switzerland’s stance on Ukraine.

The United States accuses Russia of obstructing the path of the Constitutional Committee, which stopped at its eighth round on February 22, 2022. The US embassy in Syria said on May 24 that Russia and the Syrian regime continue to find excuses to block the plans of the Syrian-led Constitutional Committee meetings.

It added, via “X”, that all previous committee meetings were held in Geneva, and Russia and the regime’s claims about Geneva’s lack of neutrality are “a stalling tactic to avoid responding to the legitimate will of the Syrian people and resolving the Syrian conflict”.

The US embassy noted that Russia had discussed issues in the Constitutional Committee meetings before, such as arms control and humanitarian issues.

It indicated that in 2023 Russia participated in international Geneva discussions about the conflict in Georgia, highlighting that Moscow has no problem with holding other meetings in Geneva, except for the Constitutional Committee.

The Constitutional Committee consists of 50 members chosen by the regime, 50 chosen by the opposition, and 50 chosen by the United Nations from representatives of civil society and experts. The goal is to reach a consensual constitution between the Syrian parties, without achieving any progress since the start of this political journey in 2019. The vision and approach of the Syrian regime towards it are evident in al-Assad’s remarks during an interview with Russia 24 channel and Rossiya Segodnya agency on November 15, 2019, where he said, “The Constitutional Committee has nothing to do with the elections; it only concerns the constitution. If they think they will return to the mandate era, I say to them, this will only be in your dreams.”