Syria needs a loyal opposition, not political guardians

Syria is undergoing one of the most delicate transitions in its modern history. Security, reconstruction, transitional justice and institutional reform all demand urgent attention. Yet beneath these immense challenges lies a clear and present danger: the belief that those who carried the burden of military liberation in December 2024 alone possess the authority to define the country's future.

I call this phenomenon guardianship over the truth.

It is the conviction – often sincerely held – that one individual, movement or faction alone has earned the moral right to determine what constitutes the revolutionary project. Those who question its choices are portrayed as obstacles to progress, enemies of the revolution, or people acting in bad faith.

This is hardly unique to Syria. History is littered with movements that began as collective struggles but gradually came to regard themselves as the proprietors of the cause they championed.  The danger is particularly acute during periods of transition because it rarely presents itself as authoritarianism. Those who assume this role seldom believe they are suppressing pluralism. On the contrary, they see themselves as protecting the revolution from deviation. It is precisely this sense of moral certainty that makes the phenomenon so difficult to challenge.

It does not emerge overnight. It develops through countless small decisions: narrowing the circle of consultation, dismissing criticism as disloyalty, and gradually constructing an environment in which questioning those in power becomes dangerous.

It would be dishonest not to acknowledge what Syria's transitional authorities have achieved.

Within a remarkably short period, they have restored a measure of security across large parts of the country, formed a government with at least some religious and regional diversity, initiated important discussions on transitional justice and the fate of the disappeared, and pursued diplomatic engagement that has significantly reduced Syria's international isolation. These are substantial achievements in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and years of devastating civil war.

Yet recognising those achievements should not require silence about emerging concerns.

One increasingly visible trend is the narrowing distinction between the governing movement and the institutions of the state. Political dialogue remains limited. Civil society and independent political actors have yet to be meaningfully integrated into shaping Syria's transition. At times, criticism is implicitly presented as an attempt to undermine liberation from the Assad regime.

The argument often takes an unspoken form: we liberated the country, therefore our judgement should not be questioned. But this is precisely where guardianship begins.

Most Syrians are asking for sharaka: partnership. Partnership does not require unanimous agreement. It requires recognising that different political forces possess an equal stake in the country's future.

Perhaps the greatest conceptual challenge facing Syria's new rulers is one that mature democracies take for granted: the existence of a loyal opposition.

The governing authorities do not yet appear fully to grasp that a citizen – or indeed an entire political movement – can be loyal to the state while remaining critical of the government of the day. Loyalty to Syria is not the same as loyalty to those who temporarily exercise power in Damascus. 

Indeed, the opposite is true. A healthy state depends upon citizens who are willing to support national institutions while scrutinising those entrusted to run them. Governments are temporary. States endure.

Unless this distinction becomes part of Syria's political culture, exclusion will become inevitable. It is simply unrealistic to imagine that any government will command wholehearted and unqualified support from the overwhelming majority of society. Attempting to manufacture such unanimity is more likely to breed resentment and instability.

Equally, this tendency towards political guardianship is by no means confined to those in government. Some voices within the opposition display precisely the same instincts. They too claim exclusive ownership over the revolution's legacy, dismiss alternative perspectives, and accuse anyone who acknowledges the government's achievements of appeasement or betrayal. Guardianship is a temptation that spares no political camp – including, if we are honest, ourselves.

Syria's transitional authorities should distinguish carefully between criticism intended to weaken the national project and criticism offered in the hope of strengthening it. Political maturity lies in recognising that honest criticism is an asset rather than a threat, and that opponents are not necessarily enemies.

That distinction marks the difference between a state that builds durable institutions and one that merely reconstructs Baath-style political guardianship under new management.