Eurasia Press & News
Days before his troops overthrew the regime of Bashar al-Assad, Ahmad al-Sharaa said that Syria deserves a political system in which no “single ruler makes arbitrary decisions.” Yet now, as the country’s interim president, al-Sharaa has unveiled a constitution that puts executive, legislative, and judicial power in his own hands, with no elections for the next five years.
On March 13, the seven-member constitutional committee appointed by al-Sharaa unveiled a 53-article text that al-Sharaa approved. The committee explained that it chose to concentrate executive power in the hands of the president during the transitional period “to ensure swift action and address any developments during that time.”
No Balance of Power Between Branches
Article 2 of the constitution says that it establishes “a political system based on the principle of separation of powers,” yet subsequent provisions enable the president to select lawmakers and top judges. Under Article 24, the “president directly appoints one-third of the parliament and forms a committee to select the remaining two-thirds, subject to his approval.” The constitutional court, responsible for reviewing and enforcing the constitution, operates under the judicial branch, but Article 47 allows the president to appoint all its members.
Whereas Assad’s 2012 constitution allowed the president to “dissolve the People’s Assembly” at will, the 2025 constitution does not grant him that power. However, since the president appoints the parliament’s members, his control is even greater.
A key similarity between the two documents concerns emergency powers. Article 103 of the 2012 constitution empowered the president to declare or repeal a state of emergency in consultation with his ministers. Likewise, Article 41 of the 2025 constitution allows the president to declare a state of emergency with the approval of the National Security Council, a body he appoints himself and leads.
Sharp Criticism of Executive Control
Instead of seeking unity in a divided country and building the legitimacy of the government, the constitution insulates al-Sharaa from accountability. In the words of Syrian journalist Alia Mansour, “All powers are in the hands of the President at a time when we desperately need participatory decision-making. There is no true separation of powers — Every authority is either controlled or appointed by Sharaa himself.” Those who drafted the constitution concede this point. “There is virtually no oversight of the President’s actions,” said constitutional committee member Ray’an Keheilan.
Twenty-four Syrian Kurdish human rights organizations rejected the constitutional declaration completely, condemning it for being drafted “without ensuring inclusive participation or fair representation of all segments of the Syrian people.” Druze commander Bahaa al-Jamal was even more blunt, declaring, “We will not recognize Ahmad al-Sharaa, a terrorist, as an unelected president imposed on Syria, and we reject this constitution.” Meanwhile, Syrian constitutional law professor Sam Dala criticized the document for never using the word democracy, a term that, despite its flawed implementation in past Syrian constitutions, had remained a core demand of the people “since the first day of the revolution.”
Washington Wants a Government in Damascus That Can Ensure Peace
Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement earlier this month describing “credible, non-sectarian governance as the best path to avoid further conflict” in Syria. The new constitution does not even meet that low bar. Al-Sharaa seized power by force of arms and remains on the U.S. terrorism blacklist for his past as an al-Qaeda commander. To prevent Syria from sliding back into dictatorship, a system of checks and balances is essential. Washington should clarify that restoring diplomatic ties and sending an ambassador to Damascus depend on Syria’s progress toward representative government.
