Syria is often referred to as a country in transition. That is deceiving

A transition implies progress toward something better—usually democracy. However, Syria’s present political trajectory points in a completely different direction.

My point is that Syria’s so-called transitional government isn’t establishing the groundwork for democracy. Instead, it creates numerous competing authoritarian institutions, each devoid of accountability, transparency, and genuine political engagement.

This is not democratic erosion in the traditional sense. It’s something more complex-and possibly more hazardous.

What does “transition” actually look like in Syria?

To understand Syria today, you must discard the concept of a unified government.

Bashar al-Assad’s regime continues to control substantial territory. However, it is not the only authority. Some areas in the northeast are governed by Kurdish-led governments. Several opposition groups control territory in the northwest.

These regions all have their own institutions. It employs its own security personnel. It sets its own political rules.

On paper, that would sound like decentralization-a system in which power is distributed. In theory, decentralization can help democracy by bringing government closer to the people.

But that is not what is happening here.

Instead of democratic decentralization, Syria has dispersed power without accountability.

The illusion of local governance

Throughout the early years of the conflict, local councils arose in opposition-held areas.

These councils appeared promising. They organized the services. Some had elections. They provided communities a voice, however limited.

For a brief while, they appeared to be the foundation of democratic rule.

Then reality set in.

Armed factions came to dominate decision-making. Funding became inconsistent. External actors supported various groups, resulting in rival hierarchies of authority.

Many councils gradually lost their significance or disbanded totally.

What replaced them was not democracy. It was ruled by whoever possessed the territory.

Democracy requires more than elections

It’s simple to believe that if people vote, the system is democratic.

However, political scientists contend that elections are not enough to ensure democracy. It necessitates institutions that enforce laws, safeguard rights, and limit authority.

According to Freedom House, Syria scores near zero on political rights and civil liberties. Their reports highlight widespread restrictions on speech, assembly, and political opposition. See more here: https://freedomhouse.org/country/syria/freedom-world

The Varieties of Democracy Project shows similarly low scores across indicators like electoral integrity and judicial independence. Their data is available here: https://www.v-dem.net

The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index ranks Syria among the most authoritarian systems in the world. Reports can be accessed here: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2024/

These indicators all lead to the same conclusion: Syria lacks the institutional foundations required for democracy.

Competing authorities, similar outcomes

At first look, Syria’s several governing bodies appear unique.

The Assad regime is concentrated and long-lasting. Kurdish-led territories prioritize local administration. Opposition zones differ greatly in structure.

But look closer, and you’ll notice a pattern.

Across these regions, three problems remain:

Limited accountability.

Leaders are rarely subjected to genuine accountability. Citizens have little options for removing them.

Participation is restricted.

Political participation is limited, whether via repression, instability, or a lack of institutional outlets.

Concentration of power.

Military and security actors typically wield significant power.

In other words, the outcomes appear to be comparable despite the fact that the actors differ.

This is how modern authoritarianism evolves

Traditional authoritarian regimes were based on centralized control. One leader. One system. One group of institutions.

Syria presents a different model.

Power is fractured but not democratic.

Political scientist Jason Brownlee contends that authoritarian governments can adapt to situations of instability. They do not always collapse. They sometimes evolve.

Syria exemplifies this progression.

Instead of a single authoritarian regime, the country today has several regional control systems, each influenced by conflict, outside interference, and inadequate institutions.

This does not make room for democracy. It promotes competition among power centers.

A system shaped from the outside

Another important factor is foreign meddling.

Russia and Iran support the Assad regime. Turkey has influence over territories controlled by the opposition. The United States has provided assistance to Kurdish-led forces in some areas.

These external parties aren’t merely providing military help. They influence the government.

They can influence which organizations achieve power. They influence how institutions form. They provide incentives that frequently prioritize stability or strategic interests over democratic transformation.

As a result, Syrians are not solely responsible for the country’s political future.

This further complicates democratic progress.

A possible counterargument

Some may argue that Syria’s divided structure can eventually lead to democracy.

After all, decentralization can foster experimentation. Different regions may establish different models of governance. Successful approaches may eventually spread.

This is potentially possible.

However, it assumes conditions that do not currently exist.

To foster democracy, decentralization must include:

• Coordination across regions
• Stable institutions.
• Protection of political rights.

Syria lacked all three.

Without them, fragmentation leads to competition, not cooperation.

Why this matters beyond Syria

Syria isn’t an isolated situation.

It exemplifies a larger issue in world politics: what happens when states fall or weaken without clear paths to democratic reconstruction?

For years, many people assumed that authoritarian institutions would inevitably give way to democracy.

However, Syria reveals a different possibility.

Instead of transitioning, countries may get stuck in a state of political limbo, neither totally totalitarian nor effectively democratic.

This has ramifications for how we see democratic erosion.

It’s not always about democracies crumbling. Sometimes democracies do not form at all.

What would need to change?

Several events must occur for Syria to transition to democracy.

First, the country would require a more cohesive political structure. Competing authorities would need to collaborate or combine.

Second, trustable institutions such as courts, legislatures, and electoral systems would need to be constructed or rebuilt.

Third, political engagement would need to increase. Citizens must be able to gather, speak, and vote without fear.

None of this will occur quickly.

And none of this is guaranteed.

The bottom line

Syria is not on a clear road toward democracy.

Its current “transition” has resulted in fragmented authority, weakened institutions, and minimal accountability.

This combination does not contribute to democratic governance.

It leads to something altogether different.

Understanding that reality is the first step toward really considering what Syria’s political future might be-and what it would take to change that.