Recent amendments to Syria’s constitution claim to signal reform, a break from al-Assad´s rule. However, a closer examination reveals they may not signify a true shift in Syria’s political state, but an attempt to reframe the existing power structure while keeping authoritarian rule intact.

The temporary nature of this constitution, set for the next five years, was clearly outlined. Nevertheless, it raises the question: Is it a step toward democracy or a foundation for lasting authoritarianism?

Interim governments often reshape a nation’s political and legal trajectory, leaving long-term effects. Syria now confronts inevitable chaos, as the enduring impact of the country’s past struggles is now being confronted.

The question remains: Are these temporary amendments simply a means of damage control, or can they pave the way for long-term progress and transformation once the five years have passed?

This wouldn’t be the first time Syria’s constitution has promised more than it delivered. Article 1 of the 2012 constitution emphasized that Syria is an indivisible, democratic state—yet the following years, marked by bloodshed, displacement, and loss, told a different story.

The fallen regime relied heavily on centralized power and control over the military. Although the provisions of the new constitution indicate a prioritization of democracy, human rights, and the decentralization of power, a closer look reveals that these changes are merely superficial and fall short of true democratic reform.

This analysis will focus on two key issues: Emerging authoritarianism and the constitution’s failure to define and protect essential rights.

The numerous contradictions begin with the portrayal of the separation of powers. Despite claims of power balance, articles 24, 32, 35(a), and 38 reinforce presidential dominance in both governance and military affairs. He is granted the authority to form the higher committee, appoint members of the people’s assembly, and act as the supreme commander of the armed forces.

The lack of effective change reinforces his power over the country, the people, and the army—a continuation of the authority held by the former regime. While our rights and freedoms are promised within the framework of the law, they remain limited, as explicitly stated in Article 23, which imposes limitations based on national security and territorial integrity. However, recent horrifying events reveal clear breaches of these constitutional principles—where, then, is the rule of law?

The 2012 constitutional amendment introduced some democratic reforms without deviating from the 1973 framework. Article 8, which had solidified the Ba’ath Party’s dominance, was removed, paving the way for a multiparty system based on political pluralism. Additionally, the 2012 constitution expanded citizens’ political rights, including freedom of assembly, peaceful protest, and association (Arts. 43 – 45).

In reality, however, opposition parties remained restricted, protests were suppressed, and the state continued to control political expression. The amendments promised democracy, but it remained an empty promise, and ultimately, nothing changed.

While this is not direct proof of history repeating itself, one cannot help but wonder: Where is the emphasis on democracy in our new constitution? In other words, is the concept of democracy in our constitution merely symbolic, or does it create space for actual political change?

Given Syria’s history of legal unreliability, skepticism is growing. Figures like Dr. Mohammed Hassan, a constitutional law expert, have pointed out that the absence of essential rights in the constitution, such as the right to peaceful assembly and demonstration, is cause for serious concern.

Although Syria could one day become a free, safe space where such rights are a social norm, excluding hard-won rights remains unjust. This continuity across all our constitutions reveals the absence of genuine political transformation in Syria.

Although each amendment has introduced reforms that appear democratic on paper, they have failed to reflect the reality of life in Syria. Today, Syrians should not be left to decipher vague promises, struggling to understand their rights and freedoms.

The persistence of unchecked executive authority and the lack of independent institutions indicate otherwise—Syria needs a constitution that breaks from the status quo and creates meaningful and lasting changes.