Enab Baladi – Sedra al-Hariri
Debate continues among Syrians over the future form of the state, with some viewing federalism or self-rule as a prelude to division, while others see it as a practical framework to rebuild the social contract on new foundations.
In the eight months since the fall of the former Syrian regime on December 8, 2024, calls for federalism have multiplied. The most recent development occurred on August 27, with the announcement of the establishment of the Political Council for Central and Western Syria, which aims to achieve federalism as an alternative to centralization and to strengthen the rule of law.
In Suwayda (southern Syria), popular movements that initially called for self-rule have recently escalated into calls for full independence from the central government.
Meanwhile, the Autonomous Administration in northeastern Syria had already taken advanced steps as early as 2014, when it declared an “interim constitution” guaranteeing minority rights and federalism within a unified Syria.
Regional rivalries and local necessities shape demands for federalization, autonomy, or administrative decentralization. The issue is complex, overlapping politics and ideology with security and economics. Enab Baladi asked several experts to weigh in on the matter.
Damascus Stresses Unity, Suggests Decentralization
Ahmad al-Sharaa, Syria’s transitional president, repeatedly stressed an outright rejection of secession.
Meeting with community leaders in Idlib after the Suwayda events on August 14, he said the current stage is focused on the return of displaced people, accountability for violations, and preventing any attempts at partition or the creation of “cantons.”
He described those calling for division as “dreamers and politically ignorant,” adding that such proposals enjoy no international backing, since they would embolden groups in other countries to pursue similar demands.
Al-Sharaa argued that projects of partition or regional interference are unworkable due to the nature of Syrian society and the high population density in the south.
On August 26, he reiterated that the only viable solutions for Syria include all options except separation, explaining that decentralization, enshrined in the constitution, offers a practical alternative that preserves the distinctiveness of communities while safeguarding national unity, unlike federalism, which in the Syrian mindset is seen as a step toward division.
He stressed that any attempts to divide Syria “will not gain popular acceptance,” calling instead for a national settlement and political partnership free of sectarian quotas and fragmentation.
Threat or Inclusive National Project?
The divide over whether federalism represents a threat to national identity or a unifying project that strengthens citizenship has spilled into the political arena, reflecting differences in perspectives and objectives.
Political researcher Nader al-Khalil told Enab Baladi that the debate over “self-rule” in Syria cannot be reduced to a binary of “solution versus threat,” but depends on how it is designed, its boundaries defined, and whether it is anchored in a unifying national project that redefines the state based on equal citizenship and layered sovereignty.
Zaidoun al-Zoubi, a governance expert, agreed, noting that the meaning of “self-rule” varies from country to country.
He explained that international experiences have shown that expanded local governance within state sovereignty can strengthen national identity, as in Germany, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, where decentralization reinforced local belonging without weakening national unity.
Conversely, he warned that when autonomy is tied strictly to ethnicity or sect, the results can be divisive, as in Belgium, where ethnic competition deepened polarization, or in Ethiopia, where ethnic federalism fueled a devastating war.
In Iraq, he added, federal design eroded Iraqi national identity to the point where it nearly disappeared in some regions.
Thus, autonomy is not a ready-made formula but a tool whose outcomes depend on design and implementation: it can either become a platform to strengthen citizenship and unity or turn into a vehicle for weakening national identity and fueling fragmentation.
Fears of Partition
Al-Khalil acknowledged that fears of partition are legitimate but not inevitable, rooted in a legacy of fragmentation, long frontlines, and a war economy.
He argued that there is an opportunity if Syria adopts a flexible constitutional framework, gradual security integration, fair resource distribution, a unified national market, and a political narrative that transcends majority-minority binaries.
The real danger, he said, lies not in decentralization itself but in leaving organizational gaps to ossify into permanent borders.
“The ultimate test is design quality,” al-Khalil said. “If it produces equal citizenship that links local and national levels through transparent channels of accountability and resources, it becomes a national solution. If not, it risks turning into creeping disguised secession.”
He warned that while the window is still open, it narrows over time, making decisions more urgent. Current demands are partly shaped by external arrangements, the U.S. presence in northeastern Syria under the pretext of countering ISIS, Turkish security umbrellas in northwestern Syria, and a de facto decentralization via local security-economic networks that resemble spheres of influence. But there is no final blueprint; what exists is the management of temporary fragmentation that could be reframed if there is national will.
The Ethnic-Sectarian Dimension
The common challenge among calls for decentralization, federalism, or even secession in northeastern Syria, Suwayda, and central and western Syria lies in their rationale, security context, and the discouraging regional and international environment, compounded by Damascus’ categorical rejection of any federal or separatist features.
Another risk is their linkage to ethnic or sectarian components. The Political Council for Central and Western Syria is primarily composed of Alawites, its spokesperson Kenan Wakaf admitted. In Suwayda, the project is tied exclusively to the future of the Druze as an ethnic-sectarian community, echoed by Druze religious leader Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri.
In northeastern Syria, demands for autonomy or federalism are largely tied to Kurdish national aspirations.
Taken together, these factors highlight the risks of federalism or secession. Al-Zoubi cautioned that ethnic or sectarian logic could lead to opposite results and fuel new wars.
Federalism in Syria: Between a National Project and the Risk of Fragmentation Enab Baladi.
Hence then, the article about federalism in syria between a national project and the risk of fragmentation was published today ( ) and is available on ُEnabbaladi ( Syria ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Federalism in Syria: Between a National Project and the Risk of Fragmentation )
Also on site :
- Disgraced former Centinela Valley schools Superintendent Jose Fernandez dies
- Outsiders see a circular economy. CoreWeave’s CEO sees a ‘violent change’ rattling the supply chain down to the inside of the earth
- Tyler Perry Sued for Sexual Assault By New Accuser, an Actor in a ‘Madea’ Movie