Jana al-Issa | Hassan Ibrahim

The year 2025 has begun with discussions about a proposed national dialogue conference in Syria, which aims to shape the features of the transitional phase and to form a consensus government ahead of elections that may occur in four years. This comes after Syrians closed the year 2024 with the fall of the Assad regime, an extraordinary event whose repercussions are still felt locally, regionally, and internationally.

Amid scant and vague information, hints, speculations, and forecasts, the nature of the conference remains unclear in a Syrian environment that includes military forces, civil society organizations, independent experts, political blocs and bodies, and parties both inside and outside the country.

Politicians, experts, and legal professionals emphasize the importance of a national dialogue conference at this time, as it lays a foundation for clear governance. However, concerns linger due to the absence of several critical points, primarily transparency, the lack of information available only from leaks here and there, fears of imposing realities on Syrians, unilateral decision-making, and the potential for creating a renewed setback in Syrian governance.

In this report, Enab Baladi explores opinions from experts on the shape of the conference that Syrians are awaiting and the most important outcomes necessary to prevent plunging the country into chaos on various levels, foremost of which are constitutional and political.

1200 figures…

Early discussion without preparation

The Assad regime collapsed on December 8, 2024, and Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia. Mohammed al-Bashir was appointed as the head of a temporary caretaker government until March 2025. The government, alongside the General Command represented by Ahmed al-Sharaa, began appointments in administrative, service, and political positions, while the spotlight is now on a comprehensive national dialogue conference.

National dialogue is regarded as a popular tool for resolving conflicts and political transitions in a country; it can broaden discussions about a country’s course beyond the usual elite decision-makers and serves as a means to break political stagnation and transform complex conflicts, according to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).

Before a genuine national dialogue can commence, there must be a comprehensive, transparent, and consultative preparatory phase that lays the groundwork and initial decisions regarding the nature and framework of the dialogue, especially concerning who will be invited to participate.

The discussion surrounding a national conference today was initially a concept of national dialogue rather than a national conference, beginning informally through the media personality Mousa al-Omar after his meeting with the leader of the new Syrian administration, Ahmed al-Sharaa. He mentioned plans to launch a comprehensive national dialogue with 1200 figures.

Al-Omar stated that these figures would come from all walks of life, including men and women from various sects, parties, ethnicities, and scientific, academic, and business expertise, from all provinces to agree on a number of critical decisions affecting the Syrian people, thus serving as a bridge for the new administration to lead the state and serve the people.

For his part, Ahmed al-Sharaa spoke of a national dialogue conference, indicating it would witness broad participation from various segments of Syrian society, with key issues up for voting such as resolving the parliament and constitutional matters.

Al-Sharaa added that the conference would encompass a series of decisions decided collectively by all attendees, whereby all relevant information about the Syrian situation will be presented, and attendees will then vote on the critical and sensitive issues that will establish the transitional phase.

Al-Sharaa emphasized that the “national dialogue conference” would be inclusive and represent a wide array of components from the Syrian people, asserting that sectarian quotas would destroy Syria, while building the nation on principles of partnership and competence based on sound foundational laws would yield positive outcomes, noting that the announcement about dismantling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) would occur during the conference.

The Foreign Minister of the Damascus caretaker government, Asaad al-Shibani, deemed the current developments as the inception of efforts towards the national dialogue conference, highlighting that invitations and teams are working in preparation for the conference and communicating with all parties involved.

Al-Shibani believes that two days are insufficient for a conference of this nature, considering that the idea itself is novel to the Syrian people, and such a transparent and calm dialogue involving all segments of Syrian society has not occurred in a century, according to his press statements.

A source within the interim Damascus government (not authorized to speak to the press) told Enab Baladi, that discussions about the national conference are very premature, driven by the media without accurate sources, based on preliminary statements made by the leader of the Syrian administration, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani.

The source added that there is currently no data available regarding the existence of a national conference in Syria, as it requires extensive preparations.

National dialogues over 200 years

National dialogues have been held throughout modern history across the world, under various names and contexts in different continents over the past 200 years. Some examples include:

• The drafting of the US Constitution in 1787 served as a form of national dialogue, as it involved representatives from all states negotiating the country’s future direction.
• In Poland, the first rounds of national dialogue negotiations were held under the name “Round Table” (1988-1989).
• In Benin, the National Conference in 1990 aimed to alleviate the pressures resulting from a deep economic crisis and the parallel erosion of political legitimacy.
• Gabon organized a special national dialogue conference (1990), followed by the Republic of Congo-Brazzaville (1991), Togo (1991), Mali (1991), and Niger (1991).
• Over the past 20 years, national dialogues have continued to facilitate peace processes, political reforms, or constitutional drafting worldwide, from Somalia (2000, 2002-2004), Afghanistan (2002, 2003-2004), Nepal (2008-2012), to Egypt (2011), Yemen (2013-2014), and Tunisia (2013-2014).

Most of these national dialogues led to agreements; however, only half of these agreements were implemented, and national elites often used national dialogues as a tool to gain or regain political legitimacy, which limited their ability to bring about transformative change.

Rejected components… Confusion in the opposition

Since the fall of the regime, the official opposition entities (the Syrian National Coalition and the Syrian Negotiation Commission) have experienced evident confusion and chaos, as Syrian administration leader Ahmed al-Sharaa did not openly welcome the existence of these entities at the national conference or the future of Syria, as the justifications for creating these entities no longer exist today.

While al-Sharaa welcomed figures managing these entities as individuals, this did not satisfy these officials, according to what appears to be the case for those following their media statements. None of the Coalition members have met with al-Sharaa so far, unlike military forces that were aligned with or competing against him, which announced their readiness to dissolve themselves to join the Syrian army.

Conversely, a small group of former Coalition members agree that there is no need for opposition entities after the regime’s departure, prompting them to resign from the Coalition without any of the resigning members announcing their true desire to engage in political work in the future individually.

To discuss the position of the Coalition and its role in the upcoming national conference, Enab Baladi communicated with several responsible figures and the media office director of the Coalition, but received no response by the time this report was prepared.

Syrian politician Yahya Maktabi, who is one of the resigning members from the Coalition, told Enab Baladi, “We are today in a new phase far removed from the previous phase which had complex and intertwined circumstances.”

Today, after the Assad regime’s end and the opening of new pages, we are facing a different shape, according to Maktabi, as the upcoming phase requires moving towards forming political parties that will be essential for the natural initiation of political life, thus preparing for elections based on the existence of those parties.

Maktabi added that each member of the Coalition has their own viewpoint and various motivations, and based on this, some have submitted their resignations without confirming that these resignations came out of a desire to participate in future politics as individuals rather than as entities.

Seven principles for successful dialogue

According to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), there is no one-size-fits-all model for national dialogue suitable for all countries. However, national dialogues are believed to have higher chances of success if they include seven principles:

• Inclusion: All major interest groups should be invited to participate, including women, youth, and other traditionally marginalized groups.
• Transparency: Preparations must be carried out carefully and transparently by a preparatory committee comprising all major participating groups.
• Public Participation: A dialogue that includes all major interest groups may lose legitimacy if the public is not given enough opportunities to stay informed about and participate in the dialogue. Beyond those present in the room, national dialogue should also include mechanisms for engaging the broader population through connecting local dialogues to the national dialogue, as well as public consultations, regular communication, and media coverage.
• Long-Term Agenda: The dialogue requires an agenda that addresses the root causes of conflict and seeks to reach an agreement on the main issues facing the country, which may include a number of contentious topics such as national identity, the role of religion in government, political rights, fundamental freedoms, institutional reforms, electoral procedures, and government structure. The national dialogue agenda should also provide substantive discussions around the major grievances of all key stakeholder groups, without getting bogged down in details.
• Trusted Entity: Having a trusted entity to hold the dialogue is crucial to ensure that a wide range of stakeholders participate, avoiding perceptions of bias. This entity can take the form of a single person, a group of individuals, an organization, or a coalition of organizations. The organizing entity should be respected by the majority of citizens and should not have any political aspirations or goals that could create a clear conflict of interest.
• Appropriate and Clear Procedures: The national dialogue should be conducted outside existing government institutions, as the current government and its institutions are unable to address the key issues at hand, either because they lack legitimacy or credibility or because they are unwilling to challenge the status quo. Specific procedures and rules governing decision-making must be established, characterized by transparency and carefully designed to fit the composition of the group and the nature of the issues at hand.
• Implementation Plan: The dialogue must include an agreed-upon plan to ensure the implementation of the resulting recommendations through a new constitution, law, policy, or other programs. Since national dialogues take place within the context of a broader transitional process, they are often formally or informally linked to transitional justice, constitutional drafting, and elections. In the absence of a clear implementation plan, the national dialogue risks consuming significant amounts of time and resources without yielding any tangible results.

Risks

National dialogue deserves attention as a tool capable of facilitating peaceful political transformation, but it is not a magical solution. Even in the most successful cases, it represents only one step on the long and arduous path to building a peaceful society, according to the United States Institute of Peace.

These processes consume vast resources and political energy, sometimes leading the government to neglect its fundamental responsibility for governance and service provision. Additionally, national dialogues can stray off course or produce recommendations that are never implemented.

Despite the importance of national dialogue, there is a risk of such dialogues being deliberately misused and manipulated by leaders seeking to bolster their grip on power.

The term “national dialogue” has also been used to refer to processes that stand in opposition to political transformation and peace, as these terms have been employed to disrupt democratic processes, delay elections, bolster efforts by political elites to maintain the status quo, and alleviate citizens’ grievances without any genuine intention to act on the concerns expressed, according to the institute.

What kind of conference do Syrians want?

As with most topics that determine the fate of peoples, Syrians do not agree, despite their varied specialties and backgrounds, on a single format for the national conference. However, experts agree on several essential criteria to ensure the country does not plunge into chaos.

The complexity of the Syrian situation makes it more difficult to determine the shape and nature of the conference, as priorities clash amidst urgent issues that need addressing, the most important of which include transitional justice, the constitution, the appointment of a transitional government, and even the holding of presidential elections in the absence of representative political parties for various components of the population.

Building institutions before the conference

Strategic expert and governance researcher Dr. Bassem Hatahet stated to Enab Baladi that upcoming tasks fall on the responsibility of Syrian institutions, noting that the previous regime transformed Syria from a state of institutions into a state of security branches, which imposes an urgent need to work on rehabilitating these institutions to participate in the national conference carrying the project for Syria’s future.

Dr. Hatahet clarified that the institutions intended for rehabilitation are those of Syrian civil society, which consists of trade unions, federations, and pioneering organizations that date back to the era of the Syrian state.

 

When these regulatory institutions participate in the national conference, it will be a qualitative national conference due to the diversity of participation from the elements of Syrian civil society.

Dr. Bassem Hatahet

 

Thus, Dr. Hatahet calls for the interim government in Damascus to rehabilitate civil society and then drive engagement in building the modern state that will be established within the framework of a state of institutions.

He believes that the most important aspect of the conference will not be its outcomes, but rather the topics that will be discussed, suggesting that a project to be debated could be “The Project of the Modern Syrian State,” which can be divided into three sections.

The first section represents the construction of the administrative infrastructure of the state, the second focuses on restoring the infrastructure of state personnel, and finally, the third aims to reactivate state economic, social, international relations, civil society, and political programs, among other matters.

Ambiguity… A complex scene

Dr. Rahaf al-Doughli, a political science professor at Lancaster University, believes it is important to clearly explain the purpose of this conference from the start, whether it will be for dialogue about the future shape of the state, to lay out the steps and vision for current representation in the caretaker government, or to discuss steps towards moving to a transitional government after the expiration of the caretaker government’s three-month term.

Dr. al-Doughli stated in an interview with Enab Baladi that there must be clear communication to understand what the desired goal of this conference is.

 

In my opinion, it is important to emphasize that holding a national conference after the end of the war carries significant symbolism in the political transition process and in building a narrative for national identity that reflects the aspirations of the entire Syrian people with all its components.

Dr. Rahaf al-Doughli

 

Dr. al-Doughli sees that the conference currently being discussed may not answer all these questions, nor can it, due to the complexities of the political and regional scene.

She believes it is impossible to hold a national conference while the military situation remains unregulated in light of calls for the dissolution and integration of factions. The steps of these factions regarding disarmament and acceptance of surrender are unclear, whether regarding those in As-Suwayda, southern Syria, or northeastern Syria, and not just the Turkish-supported National Army factions.

It is crucial to be precise in our aspirations for this conference and its naming; therefore, it is better to call it a preparatory conference. It is necessary to include the election of a preparatory committee responsible for organizing the invitation to a national conference after about three months. It would be wrong to label the upcoming conference as national without a proper groundwork and clear goals prior to its holding, as all these elements are currently absent, according to Dr. al-Doughli.

A representative for each party

Former diplomat and senior fellow at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies, Danny al-Baaj, stated that determining what must emerge from this conference in terms of resolutions necessitates considering the invitations and the individuals who should be present.

Al-Baaj explained in his discussion with Enab Baladi that if the conference aims to initiate or manage the transitional phase, it should include representatives from technocrats in addition to representatives from all political and social forces in Syria that could carry social and political weight during this transitional phase.

On the other hand, if the conference’s goal is merely to gather Syrians for the sake of inclusive attendance, little significant outcome may arise from it. According to previous experiences like that of Afghanistan, such types of conferences could lead to executive committees that manage the transitional process, draft constitutions, and address other issues, as noted by al-Baaj.

 

In today’s Syrian context, there are two advantages: the first is our ability to prevent international intervention, and the second is the capacity to undertake a purely Syrian transitional process owned and managed by Syrians. Therefore, no existing political party with an influence on the ground should be excluded from this conference.

Former Syrian diplomat Danny al-Baaj

 

Al-Baaj added that it would be more effective to achieve real results if the conference is smaller in scale, genuinely representing community and political forces, and newly emerging parties, with only one representative per group. This would mean that the total number of attendees would range between 150 and 200, including technocrats with a proven history in constitutional, political, or administrative frameworks.

Al-Baaj also agreed on the necessity of broad representation of women within the conference, stating that at least one-third of the attendees should be women.

What we are seeing is a very expansive conference, according to media reports, indicating that the conference will take place and that from it will emerge executive committees and smaller working groups to outline the procedures for the transitional period, according to al-Baaj.

Four mandatory outcomes

In this regard, the political researcher and director of research at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies, Maan Talaa, believes that the upcoming national conference should be viewed not only as a political entitlement but also as a legal constitutional obligation, and it is also a security matter, as the repercussions and consequences of the vacuum or absence of constitutional framing for the new Syria are serious. Therefore, this conference is deemed a national necessity and should be on the agenda for the upcoming phase.

Talaa emphasized in an interview with Enab Baladi that the call for this conference is essential to frame these issues, maintain the unity of Syrian territory, and take more decisive actions regarding the security control of the country.

In terms of the technical standards for the invitations, the conference should reflect the social fabric of Syrian society. Here, there are two criteria for that: the first is the geographical and ethnic criteria, and the second is the criterion of the bodies and political formations representing these areas.

Maan Talaa believes that the clarity of the conference’s agenda will not yield significant changes, but it can be considered a starting point in a continuous discussion process that requires an environment conducive to safe and healthy dialogue.

 

The subject of the upcoming national conference will remain a subject of ongoing criticism because there are regulatory frameworks for forming such a dialogue that do not seem to be present today, the most important of which is the existence of a founding committee that sets the criteria for participation in this dialogue and others.

Political researcher Maan Talaa

 

The political researcher Maan Talaa asserts that the conference should yield four main issues, the first of which is constitutional amendments or a temporary constitutional declaration that grants the existing authority some constitutional powers that frame legal and judicial matters.

Additionally, it may declare the dissolution of the Baath party, considering it the most authoritarian entity in the state, and detach it from the current regime. The conference can also call for founding committees to discuss several issues, primarily the national accountability and transitional justice program and a series of legal reforms concerning party and election laws.

It is expected that the conference will call for the continued discussion on the mechanisms and standards of operation of the transitional government that will begin its work after March 2025, as announced.

Unprepared infrastructure

There is no doubt that national dialogue is a necessity and a second step, but the current realities in Syria do not constitute a good starting point for it. What is happening can be described as a regression or political retreat, and there is no clear political roadmap.

There is a monopoly of political representation by figures from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which insists on inviting national figures to the dialogue conference as individuals rather than political blocs, parties, or civil society forces, thus stripping genuine national powers of participation as political blocs and depriving them of their weight and momentum.

Continuing in this state will prevent political blocs from entering and participating as entities, leaving a significant portion of the Syrian people retreating behind their sects, religious bodies, and tribal communities, seeking refuge in pre-state formulations.

We are facing a significant national obligation that cannot be carried out in this manner, nor can it be imposed on the Syrian people. The conference is not only about legitimizing the Syrian democratic transition, as the transition has occurred, and the Assad regime has fallen, but it seems to be a legalization of Tahrir al-Sham control over authority today, and an attempt to impose a de facto authority in Syria.

The current phase is more difficult than before, and there must be transparency, publicly naming individuals for the preparatory committee and other bodies and political appointments. A significant portion of those appointed by Ahmed al-Sharaa are not committed to democracy, and we are facing a national obligation that lacks transparency, with no information available, in an attempt to impose something on the Syrians.

Currently, several problems exist, including that Tahrir al-Sham has begun to establish more sovereign points than the role of a transitional government, without returning to the Syrian street, and is attempting to use the national dialogue conference to impose some form of authorization on the Syrian people.

The idea of gathering a thousand people in a hall for two days without preparation, ready papers, and ideas presented and discussed is chaotic. If the conference is national, what is the possibility of involving several factions and components, including the Hizb al-Tahrir which is at odds with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham? What about components from the Alawite sect, which has recently faced some violations?