Charting a Realistic Future For Syria

Rushed elections risk deepening divisions; gradual reforms can build a united Syria. The lessons of Iraq underline the need for a pragmatic and patient approach to rebuilding.

People celebrate in Umayyad Square on Dec. 20, 2024, after the ousting of Syria's Bashar al-Assad (Reuters)

For those of us who grew up in neighboring Iraq, Syria was our summer destination, a place to escape extreme weather and challenging circumstances. My last trip to Syria was in 2007, and I hope to return one day to see the beautiful mountains of Qasioun, enjoy the beaches of Latakia, and stroll through the stunning streets of Damascus. My interest in Syria is not just about a shared past but also about a shared future.

Iraq shares a long border with Syria, and what happens there profoundly affects the country and its people—both positively and negatively. Both nations were ruled by the Baath party, which had its own rivalries in the 1980s and 1990s that affected their relationships. Following the fall of Iraq’s Baath party after the U.S. invasion, Assad played a major role in undermining Iraq's democratic experiment, as evidenced by ISIS's rise and the refugee crisis caused by Syria’s civil war. Assad also became a tool for strengthening Iran’s influence, which, unfortunately, continues to dominate large parts of Iraq, including its government.

This is not an article about Iraq, however. It is about Syria and the critical lessons we must heed as it begins its post-Assad era recovery. Chief among these lessons is the danger of rushed elections.

One key proposal on the table is delaying national elections for up to four years—a suggestion that has drawn mixed reactions. However, this idea merits serious consideration. Iraq’s experience after the 2003 invasion serves as a cautionary tale. Early elections entrenched sectarian divisions and empowered political actors who exploited the fragile environment for personal and factional gain. The consequences of those hasty decisions continue to haunt Iraq today. Iran capitalized on the vacuum, funding its candidates—the only ones organized after decades of Baathist oppression—and enabling them to win.

Syria must avoid repeating this mistake. Post-conflict societies need time to heal, rebuild, and lay the foundation for sustainable governance. Holding elections prematurely risks exacerbating tensions and undermining the legitimacy of any new government. A transitional period focused on stabilization, reconciliation, and institution-building is essential before the Syrian people can confidently exercise their political rights.

Another important point is that early elections often prompt people to organize along sectarian and ethnic lines rather than focusing on performance. Political parties tend to promote sectarianism, presenting themselves as the “defenders” of their respective sects.

As for expectations, especially for Western audiences or those with a surface-level understanding of Syria and the region, it is unrealistic to expect Syria to transform into a secular liberal democracy in the near or even foreseeable future. This is not a dismissal of the Syrian people’s potential but an acknowledgment of their society’s realities. Syria is relatively socially conservative, except in some major cities, and its social fabric does not currently align with Western-style democratic ideals. Even in established democracies, figures embodying Thomas Jefferson’s ideals would struggle to garner widespread support in today’s political climate. How, then, could such a figure thrive in Syria?

This is not about lowering expectations but about adapting goals to Syria’s specific circumstances. A more achievable vision might resemble the Gulf states' focus on economic growth, infrastructure development, and technological advancement, coupled with gradual reforms in governance. While this model has its limitations, it offers Syria a pathway toward stability and prosperity. Transforming Syria from a nation that generates refugees into one that attracts investment and tourism would be a remarkable success.

Unlike the Gulf states, however, Syria has both the blessing and curse of diversity. Not all Syrians are Arabs, identify as Arabs, or consider themselves part of the Muslim world. Syria is not a homogeneous society like many Gulf countries. There is the Kurdish question, the Druze question, the Alawite question, the Christian question, and so forth. The Assad regime exploited sectarianism for survival, pitting minorities against majorities and fostering hate and division. We are witnessing the destruction of the myth of a secular Assad, just as we saw with the “secular” Saddam.

While some envision a centralized Syrian state, the reality may call for a more decentralized approach. Kurdish areas could adopt a model of semi-autonomy, akin to the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq but tailored to Syria’s unique context. Semi-autonomous zones could provide a blueprint for managing Syria’s diversity. Similar models could be applied to Druze and other areas, allowing communities to implement governance systems that work for them. This approach should not rely solely on ethnic or religious divisions, as such delineations can exacerbate divisions. Instead, governance could be organized around economic and social considerations.

Syria could learn a lot from the decentralization reforms implemented in Ukraine, as highlighted in an article by my friend Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili.

A thriving civil society is the backbone of any stable nation, but it cannot be imported or imposed. Syria’s civil society must emerge from within, driven by those who have lived through the country’s devastation and understand its complexities. Wealthy Syrians, both inside the country and in the diaspora, have a critical role to play. Their investment in grassroots initiatives can help foster a civil society that is authentic, adaptive, and resilient. I am already hearing of such efforts by Dr. Mazen Derawan and others, which gives me a lot of hope.

Western nations also have a role to play, but their support should move away from traditional aid systems that often breed corruption and dependency. Instead, resources should focus on fostering entrepreneurship and supporting small businesses—giving power to the people rather than making them dependent on grant officers with no skin in the game. Startups, local enterprises, and innovative initiatives are better equipped to rebuild trust and create sustainable economic opportunities.

In a fragmented society like Syria, prosperity can bridge divides in ways ideology cannot. A stable economy provides opportunities for all citizens, reducing the appeal of sectarianism and extremism. Economic recovery is not just a goal; it is a necessity for national unity. Investment in infrastructure, agriculture, and industry can lay the foundation for long-term growth. Tourism, once a cornerstone of Syria’s economy, could be revived to showcase the country’s rich history and culture. By creating jobs and fostering a sense of shared purpose, economic development can help heal the wounds of war and bring Syrians together.

Western nations must approach Syria with humility and pragmatism. The era of imposing ideological solutions has passed; what Syria needs now is empowerment, not prescription. Funding should prioritize initiatives that enable Syrians to take control of their future. Supporting entrepreneurs, fostering innovation, and providing access to capital are far more effective strategies than perpetuating dependency on external aid.

By investing in people and businesses, the international community can help create a foundation for Syria’s recovery that is both sustainable and inclusive. This approach not only respects Syria’s sovereignty but also aligns with the long-term interests of regional and global stability.

Syria’s path forward will not be easy, but it is not without hope. Delaying elections, embracing localized governance, fostering grassroots civil society, and prioritizing economic recovery offer a pragmatic framework for rebuilding the nation. This vision may fall short of the idealized dreams of liberal democracy, but it represents a realistic and achievable path toward stability and prosperity.

Syria does not need to mimic other nations’ journeys; it must chart its own course. By focusing on what is possible and empowering Syrians to rebuild their country on their own terms, the world can help Syria emerge from the ashes as a united, more prosperous nation.