The Syrian regime has unveiled its first parliamentary election since Assad’s fall, but instead of progress, critics see a carefully orchestrated postwar power grab.
Electoral commission spokesperson Nawar Najmeh announced results showing 119 members elected, overwhelmingly Sunni and male, while only four percent of lawmakers are women, sparking fury among observers.
“Representation is not proportionate to the status of women in Syrian society,” Najmeh admitted, acknowledging the obvious imbalance, while opposition voices denounced the outcome as sham democracy.
Only two Christians secured seats, raising questions about inclusivity. Critics claim minority voices were sidelined to cement new rulers’ control through another postwar power grab.
Officials defended the indirect voting system, blaming unreliable population data after 14 years of conflict. Skeptics argued the mechanism shields elites from true democratic accountability and transparency.
About 6,000 members of electoral colleges chose most legislators from preapproved lists, while interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa will appoint the remainder, fueling widespread distrust.
“People in Aleppo and Damascus may feel hopeful, but for Druze and Kurds, these elections were not representative,” Osama Bin Javaid reported.
Authorities postponed ballots in Kurdish-held northeast and Druze Suwayda, citing security. Yet opposition parties claim suspension was calculated to weaken challenges to government dominance.
Twenty-one parliamentary seats remain unfilled. Najmeh promised “supplementary ballots” but offered no timelines, reinforcing critics’ perception that the entire process was another postwar power grab.
Rights activist Nour al-Jandali, elected in Homs, admitted, “the new lawmakers face immense responsibility. We must rebuild a state based on freedom, citizenship, and justice.”
She demanded women play a “real and active role” in drafting policies. Critics fear tokenism dominates, leaving female politicians sidelined in another patriarchal charade.
The indirect system, framed as necessity, effectively guarantees power remains concentrated in elites’ hands, reducing elections to a hollow theatre of postwar power grab politics.
Analysts say Kurdish exclusion reflects deliberate marginalisation. “They fear Kurdish representation could challenge fragile control,” one expert warned, pointing to decades of discrimination institutionalised into state policy.
Druze communities voiced similar concerns, describing Damascus’ justification as cynical. “Security is always the excuse,” one Druze elder said. “The real fear is losing control.”
Despite Syria’s devastated economy and shattered infrastructure, the ruling bloc prioritised consolidating power. Observers argued such manipulation deepens divisions instead of fostering reconciliation and genuine democratic renewal.
President Ahmed al-Sharaa insists inclusivity will come through his appointments. Critics view this claim as another attempt to disguise autocracy behind promises of postwar power grab optics.
Electoral watchdogs reported lack of transparency in candidate vetting, with security agencies screening contenders. Dissenting voices were systematically blocked, undermining the credibility of this so-called transition.
Najmeh himself conceded Christian representation was “weak,” but dismissed calls for quotas. For minorities, the refusal highlighted systemic exclusion disguised beneath shallow rhetoric of reform.
The vote comes after March’s agreement between Damascus and Kurdish forces to integrate institutions. Yet its implementation has stalled, leaving Kurdish participation sidelined indefinitely, angering communities.
Critics say delaying ballots in Raqqa and Hasakeh exposes insincerity. “They make promises, but deliver nothing,” one Kurdish official remarked. “It is all smoke and mirrors.”
International reaction has been cautious. Western diplomats acknowledged the symbolic step yet flagged inclusivity concerns, warning that without legitimacy the parliament risks becoming another authoritarian rubber-stamp.
“The regime cannot speak of democracy while excluding swathes of its population,” one European envoy declared, urging Damascus to address systemic flaws and embrace genuine participation.
For many Syrians, the election raised more questions than answers. “We survived war hoping for change. Instead, nothing changes,” said Amal, a displaced mother.
Civil society leaders warned that unless inclusivity improves, grievances could reignite unrest. “Marginalisation fuels instability,” one activist argued. “The state cannot afford another cycle of conflict.”
Human rights groups stressed the importance of proportional representation. Amnesty International blasted the process as “neither free nor fair,” echoing global criticism of Syria’s first parliament since Assad.
The crisis of trust is profound. Citizens see elites recycling themselves through manipulated systems, strengthening perceptions of a calculated postwar power grab rather than genuine renewal.
Syrian youths, once hopeful, now express disillusionment. “They promised opportunity, but only preselected names win,” said Karim, a university student in Damascus. “We are spectators, not participants.”
Women’s groups condemned the outcome as a betrayal. “Our sacrifices during war are ignored,” activist Layla said. “This parliament silences us while pretending inclusivity exists.”
Exiled opposition leaders called the election fraudulent. “This parliament reflects regime continuity, not democracy,” declared Fares al-Hammadi, urging international observers to hold Damascus accountable for exclusionary practices.
Najmeh attempted optimism, claiming supplementary ballots will improve diversity. Critics dismissed his words. “They keep dangling promises, but it’s deliberate stalling,” one opposition source told Reuters.
Observers compare Syria’s process with sham elections across authoritarian states. The similarity strengthens arguments that the election was primarily an exercise in postwar power grab management.
Ordinary Syrians remain sceptical. “Bread prices matter more than ballots,” said one shopkeeper in Hama. “We vote, but nothing changes—life stays unbearable.”
Displacement, poverty, and destruction overshadow electoral promises. Millions remain refugees. “They speak of democracy, yet ignore our existence,” refugee Yasmin in Jordan said, rejecting the hollow theatre in Damascus.
Syrian intellectuals warned exclusion risks hardening sectarianism. “The new parliament reflects majoritarian politics, not unity,” said scholar Rami Haddad. “It entrenches divisions in postwar society already fractured.”
Ahmed al-Sharaa may hope this election strengthens legitimacy, but critics counter it highlights fragility. “Legitimacy cannot be manufactured,” an analyst said. “It must be earned inclusively.”
Despite rhetoric of renewal, the elections appear designed to protect entrenched networks. Observers say elites exploit chaos to solidify their control, a textbook postwar power grab.
Voter apathy also undermined legitimacy. Reports indicated widespread disinterest. “People know results are predetermined,” said a Damascus taxi driver. “Voting changes nothing; power belongs to the same families.”
The lack of universal suffrage remains glaring. Authorities argue data loss prevented it, but critics reject the excuse, calling it a convenient tool of exclusionary politics.
International human rights monitors, denied access, condemned the absence of oversight. “Without transparency, Syria’s elections cannot be recognised,” one watchdog insisted, adding legitimacy demands openness, not secrecy.
Inside Syria, the regime trumpeted the vote as a milestone. Yet to many, it symbolised betrayal of revolutionary sacrifices, reinforcing disillusionment across battered communities nationwide.
One opposition figure declared bluntly: “This was theatre, not democracy. Syria deserves representation, not domination.” His words resonated widely, encapsulating national frustration at hollow promises of change.
As regional leaders cautiously praised the milestone, Syrians themselves expressed cynicism. “They clap abroad, but here, nothing improves,” one Aleppo resident complained. “The world ignores our truth.”
The election that should symbolise renewal has instead exposed enduring authoritarian instincts. For many, it marks not progress but the latest stage in postwar power grab.
Ultimately, this parliament risks cementing division rather than healing wounds. Unless genuine reforms follow, Syria’s fragile peace could shatter under the weight of unfulfilled democratic aspirations.
The so-called transition may impress international allies briefly, but without authenticity, disillusionment will grow. Syrians see through staged reforms, recognising another cynical postwar power grab at play.
