Constitutional Declaration signed by Transitional President al-Sharaa stipulates that only a Muslim can be president of Syrian “Arab” Republic

DARAMSUQ — On Thursday, Syrian Transitional President Ahmad al-Sharaa signed the Constitutional Declaration, describing it as the beginning of a new phase for Syria aimed at establishing governance principles during the transitional period. “We hope this marks a new history for Syria, where injustice is replaced with justice, ignorance with knowledge and suffering with mercy,” al-Sharaa stated during the signing ceremony.

According to the Constitutional Drafting Committee, the declaration consists of a preamble and four sections covering general provisions, rights and freedoms, the structure of government, and final provisions.

The signing of the Constitutional Declaration, the official contents of which have not yet been officially published but have been leaked to media, has been criticized for several Articles which do not echo the democratic aspirations of many Syrians.

Syrian “Arab” Republic

The Drafting Committee clarified that it had not altered any of the general provisions, including the country’s name, which remains “Syrian Arab Republic.” Justifying its decision, the committee stated:

“We did not seek to change what Syrians have been accustomed to since the founding of the state, as we believe our legitimacy does not allow for modifications in fundamental provisions.”

This insistence on maintaining an Arab-centric national identity comes amidst persistent calls from the Kurdish, Syriac–Assyrian–Aramean, and other none Arab communities for the state to be renamed the “Syrian Republic” to reflect the country’s ethnic and linguistic diversity.

Under the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad, Kurdish culture was suppressed, tens of thousands of Kurds were denied citizenship, and Syriacs–Assyrians–Arameans were forced to suppress their cultural identity and only allowed to express their Christian identity.

In comments made during an interview with Suroyo TV shortly after the fall of the regime, President of the Bethnahrin National Council (Mawtbo Umthoyo D’Bethnahrin, MUB) Naim Michael Hadodo warned against institutionalized ethnic and religious exclusion, stating:

“We refuse to be forced into an Arab identity that does not belong to us. How can we talk about a transitional phase while maintaining the same foundations of the Ba’ath regime?”

Imposition of Islamic Leadership

The Constitutional Declaration also states that the religion of the President must be Islam, and that Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia) is the primary source of legislation. This clause contradicts other articles in the declaration that claim to uphold freedoms and human rights, raising serious doubts about the sincerity of such commitments. The provision is likely to be contentious among representatives of non-Muslim communities. Hadodo’s comments in December again seem prescient:

“We are not against Islam, but we reject the idea that it should be the main source of legislation in a country that is supposed to be multiethnic and multi-religious. This is not democracy; this is the continuation of a theocratic state under a different name.”

Protection of freedom of opinion, expression, speech, the press, and publishing, as well as the state’s commitment to national unity and respect for cultural specificities was also included. However, the committee explicitly stated that these freedoms will be restricted by security considerations:

“We ensured a dedicated section on rights and freedoms to create a balance between societal security and personal liberty.”

This phrasing is deeply alarming, as it suggests that civil liberties will be subordinated to so-called security concerns, a tactic historically used by authoritarian regimes to suppress opposition and silence dissent.

Independent Legislative Authority or Cover for Presidential Control?

The Draft Committee granted full legislative authority to Parliament, but the President will retain the power to appoint one-third of its members. While the Committee claimed this measure ensures “the representation of competent individuals,” it essentially means that the President will continue to have direct control over the legislative body.

Furthermore, the position of Prime Minister has been abolished, concentrating all executive powers in the hands of the President, with a cabinet of ministers directly answerable to him.

The Committee insisted that the declaration does not grant the President any exceptional powers. Yet, the document clearly allows him to declare a state of emergency for the entire five-year transitional period.

Hadodo previously warned that such unchecked powers could be used to cement authoritarian rule, noting that granting the President broad emergency powers under the pretext of stability is nothing short of entrenching absolute rule:

“Democracy cannot be built through constitutions that give the President indefinite emergency powers. This is not a transition — it’s authoritarianism in disguise.”

Rights and Freedoms: Real Commitments or Empty Promises?

On paper, the Constitutional Declaration includes some positive provisions, such as guaranteeing judicial independence, banning exceptional courts, protecting property rights, and ensuring women’s rights to education, employment, and political participation. It also commits Syria to upholding previously ratified human rights agreements.

However, the real issue lies not only in the text but in its implementation. As long as absolute power remains concentrated in the president’s hands and the security apparatus remains untouched, the mechanisms for ensuring rights are respected are severely undermined — likely fatally so.

Transitional Declaration or Permanent Constitution?

The transition period is set to last five years, but questions remain about what happens afterward.

While some officials have praised the Constitutional Declaration as “a major political milestone,” its ethnically exclusive framework, religious bias, and centralization of power raise serious concerns about whether this is a step toward democracy or a rebranded form of authoritarianism.

Despite its claims of protecting rights and freedoms, the declaration fails to ensure true political inclusivity, leaving ethnic and religious minorities — along with political opposition — without meaningful guarantees of representation or protection.

Will this move spark a new wave of political and ethnic conflict in Syria? Or will opposition forces succeed in pushing for real amendments that guarantee a genuinely inclusive future?

For the article in Arabic see here