Far from the ideals of inclusivity, national consensus, and transparency, the transitional authority appears intent on engineering official institutions to entrench its dominance, effectively transforming its tenure from transitional to permanent. This approach directly contradicts the constitutional declaration it established, placing itself above the law and national sovereignty—a perilous path for a fragile nation and a fractured society, already worn down by tyranny, war, and both natural and man-made disasters.
Amid ongoing violations of the constitutional declaration, the authority seeks to distract the public with proclamations of “achievements,” saturating public discourse with peripheral matters—such as the launch of visual identity campaigns and exaggerated celebrations. This serves to obscure its breach of Article 5 of the constitutional declaration, which stipulates that the state emblem must be determined by law. Instead, these symbols have been presented with excessive pomp and flourish.
The authority continues to issue improvised decrees and decisions, systematically placing as many institutions as possible under the presidency. This not only amplifies the powers of the transitional president but also extends them beyond the already sweeping mandates granted under the constitutional declaration.
A clear example lies in the presidential decrees issued on 9 July last year. Decree No. 115 established the Supreme Council for Economic Development, while Decree No. 114 amended the investment law—both emblematic of efforts to hollow out the constitutional framework and bypass its constraints. As previously highlighted in an earlier article, the president holds no legislative authority under Paragraph 1 of Article 26, which clearly states that “the People’s Assembly shall exercise legislative authority until a permanent constitution is adopted and new legislative elections are held accordingly.”
Additionally, Decree No. 113—issued on the same date—established an economic entity known as the “Sovereign Fund,” endowed with legal personality and both financial and administrative independence, and linked directly to the presidency. This represents a further erosion of the rule of law, the façade of governance, and a blatant disregard for the separation of powers.
The Sovereign Fund has four stated objectives: first, to implement direct developmental and productive projects; second, to optimise the investment of human and material resources and technical expertise across all sectors; third, to revitalise the national economy through diversified, well-planned investments; and fourth, to convert inactive state assets into productive and developmental tools as outlined in the decree. The fund’s revenue sources include state allocations and income from its operations.
Article 12 of the same decree specifies that the fund’s director-general is accountable to both the board of directors and the president for its performance. The decree claims that the fund operates under a strict and transparent governance system, with quarterly and annual reports submitted to the presidency—placing the president as the sole guarantor of the fund’s oversight. However, the constitutional declaration offers no mechanism to question or hold the transitional president accountable, leaving public sector management and national investment entirely free from scrutiny.
Attracting investment and removing barriers cannot occur without a clear separation of powers and an independent judiciary. Legislative and security chaos, coupled with abuses dismissed by the authority as mere “individual errors,” only serve to repel foreign investors and discourage the return of expatriated national capital. Furthermore, the authority’s pursuit of external legitimacy, rather than fulfilling national responsibilities, undermines public trust—particularly among citizens yearning for democratic values and wary of the authority’s monopolisation of decision-making, centralisation of power, and its loyalists’ growing interference in appointments and public life.
Syria can no longer afford to be a testing ground, nor should its people be treated as “liberated spoils.” The lessons of history and international experience must not be ignored. When absolute power is centralised in the hands of one individual—monopolising the three branches of government, distributing strategic positions and resources as war spoils, inflating the presidency, and concentrating all forms of decision-making within a tight inner circle—under the guise of trust, investment promotion, or economic revival, the result is inevitably the formation of an oligarchic regime.
Such a system stifles freedom, justice, and civic space, leading to the looting of what remains of the country’s wealth, the further impoverishment of its people, the dismantling of institutions, and a descent into corruption, tyranny, and impunity.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.