After the end of Ba’ath rule in Syria, nothing really changed in the conditions of the people. The HTS, which replaced the Ba’ath, set out to build a system even more backward than the one-party Ba’ath system. They claimed they would rebuild the state, but every step they took was unilateral. They excluded all parties, political actors, and social groups other than themselves from the process. The current government was entirely appointed by HTS. Months have passed since the change of power, and what marked this process were the massacres committed by HTS. Instead of stopping and taking measures after the massacre of Alawites, they applied similar policies against the Druze.
Western powers recognized Ahmed al-Sharaa as the President of Syria and accepted the administration he established. Although they had concerns and reservations, they declared that they would continue with HTS, claiming there was no alternative. However, instead of considering the situation of the people, they prioritized their own interests and focused on building political balances.
HTS claims it is protecting Syria’s unity. Yet the strongest unities are built on voluntarism and the consent of the people. HTS, however, pursues this through coercion, forcing everyone into submission, and establishing its dominance. Thus, instead of unity, it deepens anxiety, fear, and mistrust.
The Druze are now much more distant from Damascus than before. The Alawites live in an environment of deep insecurity and fear. The Autonomous Regions were ready to participate in building a democratic Syria and to share their democratic experiences, but they too were excluded. Damascus, echoing Turkish rhetoric, continued to label and target the peoples of these regions as “separatists.” Countries such as the US and France intervened as mediators to reconcile the sides, but these initiatives were blocked by Turkey. HTS, rather than uniting the Syrian people and seeking compromise with different forces, insisted on imposing itself and pursuing its own path.
It was announced that Ahmed al-Sharaa will participate in the UN General Assembly. He will speak there on behalf of the Syrian state. Yet little attention is paid to what kind of Syria stands behind him. To present his administration as legitimate, he will raise the topic of elections and try to market himself by saying, “We held elections, our situation is normal like other states.” But in reality, no such election exists.
Nowhere in the world are elections held like this; perhaps such practices existed at the beginning of the last century, but not today. To call people “members of parliament” while appointing one-third of them directly—these are not representatives of the people but al-Sharaa’s officials. The rest are not elected by the people either; they are chosen by commissions appointed by HTS. (And it is not even certain such a dubious election will actually take place.) Political parties and different organizations in Syria cannot participate in the elections. There is no election law or competition. To call this an “election” is impossible. Yet the UN, with Resolution 2254, had already called for an election and political solution in Syria with the participation of all parties. Now that resolution is being ignored.
As can be seen, Syria has not recovered nor achieved unity. HTS has neither the mentality nor the practice for this. It has not opposed or acted against Turkey’s military presence in Syria or its free intervention in Syrian internal affairs. By suppressing the Druze, it forced them to flee to Israel. It also tries to subjugate the Autonomous Region, which constitutes an important part of Syria, through pressure, and if that fails, prepares to attack. On this matter, it works in full alignment with Turkey.
The Autonomous Administration has kept its doors open to all talks and efforts for unity and a solution for Syria. It has not rejected any proposal and has always been ready to take practical steps. Yet the interim government in Damascus has not taken any concrete steps to date. Instead, it has blamed the Autonomous Administration, claiming it failed to comply with the March 10 Agreement.
Yet the agreement includes provisions for the establishment of a negotiation committee and for the parties to reach consensus on unification. If the Autonomous Region is simply to hand over its military, administrative, and political structures to HTS, then what need is there for an agreement or for negotiation committees? Moreover, the agreement includes clauses guaranteeing Kurdish rights in the constitution. Ahmed al-Sharaa himself signed this. But in the interim constitution they later announced, no such articles or guarantees were included.
Now they are spreading propaganda to the world, saying “The SDF and the Autonomous Administration are not complying with the agreement.” It is clear, then, that the signature they gave was nothing more than a ploy to buy time and deceive.
Al-Sharaa declares: “The SDF does not represent all Kurds.” Then one must ask: does al-Sharaa represent all the people of Syria? If a free election were held now, what percentage of the vote would he receive? It is certain that the SDF represents the people to a much greater extent than al-Sharaa.
This is not the language of solution or reconciliation. Exclusion and marginalization do not serve resolution. The peoples of Syria want to live together in a peaceful and democratic environment. The solution lies not in war and exclusion, but in unity.