As Syria’s suffering continues and the issues of governance and administration deepen, discussions about decentralization emerge as a possible solution for building a new, more stable Syria. Although decentralization is a principle widely adopted by many modern states, some Syrian opposition figures, including self-identified liberals, insist on a centralized model and see decentralization as a threat to the country’s unity. What drives them to this stance, and why do they fear decentralization despite its clear benefits?

One of the primary reasons behind some opponents’ rejection of decentralization is the fear that it could further divide Syria, especially given the country’s complex social fabric, with its diverse sectarian and ethnic affiliations. These opponents believe that shifting power to regions and provinces might encourage some areas to seek independence, particularly in the northern and eastern parts of the country, threatening Syria’s unity as a state.

In reality, however, decentralization can be a stabilizing factor, not a divisive one, if applied carefully to enhance cooperation between regions rather than widening gaps. Decentralization does not equate to separation or independence; instead, it means distributing powers and enabling each region to manage its local affairs in a way that serves its residents and strengthens their sense of belonging to the state.

Some opponents also associate decentralization with foreign political agendas they believe aim to divide and weaken Syria. This fear has roots in a history of foreign interventions and attempts by some countries to establish influence in Syria, making some view decentralization as part of these plans.

While caution against foreign influence is understandable, rejecting decentralization based on this fear may be shortsighted and rooted in authoritarian or chauvinistic thinking. Adopting a decentralized model does not necessarily mean yielding to external pressures; it can be a response to genuine internal needs experienced by Syrians across all regions.

A Lack of Understanding of Decentralization Models

Another obstacle to accepting decentralization is the limited understanding of its various models. Some opponents believe that decentralization simply weakens the central state or diminishes its authority, while true decentralization is actually a redistribution of powers that allows local communities to actively participate in decision-making. At its core, decentralization enhances governmental efficiency, enabling each region to make decisions suited to its local reality.

Fear of Losing Political Control

The rejection of decentralization may also be tied to a fear of losing political control. Some opposition figures, especially those who see themselves as part of the future “political elite,” may worry that decentralization will reduce their influence and ability to control central decision-making. Decentralization means that power will no longer be concentrated solely in the capital but distributed more widely, potentially diminishing the influence of elites in Damascus on decisions affecting other regions.

Totalitarian Perspective and Ideological Influence

Even among liberal opposition figures, remnants of a totalitarian mindset can sometimes be found, favoring a centralized state model that they see as a guarantor of national unity and shared identity. This perspective may stem from decades of centralized rule in Syria and the impact of single-party governments on their political thinking, where the central state is portrayed as the sole stabilizer. However, in reality, the experience has shown that totalitarian centralized rule has not been effective in solving crises; rather, it has been part of the problems that led to protests, revolutions, and ultimately, the current crisis.

To emphasize the role of decentralization as a solution for internal crises, one can look at examples from other countries that faced similar conflicts and successfully improved stability through a decentralized system, potentially inspiring these liberals to reconsider their stance on political decentralization.

Successful Examples of Decentralization

Two notable examples are Iraq and Spain:

1. Iraq: After the fall of the previous regime, Iraq adopted a federal model that grants extensive powers to its regions, particularly the Kurdistan Region. This system has helped calm political and ethnic conflicts to a large extent, allowing regions to manage their internal affairs independently of the central government. Despite the challenges Iraq faces, decentralization has contributed to a degree of stability in areas that have long suffered from marginalization and exclusion.

2. Spain: Since the end of Franco’s dictatorship in the 1970s, Spain has implemented a decentralized system granting autonomy to multiple regions, such as Catalonia and the Basque Country, which have historically shown strong independence movements. Decentralization has reduced the intensity of conflicts, allowing each region to manage its own local affairs, including education, health, and local legislation. This system not only preserved Spain’s unity but also enhanced the sense of participation in decision-making and reduced internal conflicts.

In Conclusion

Academic and professional insights affirm that decentralization is not a threat to Syria’s unity. Instead, it can be a path toward building a more just and inclusive state. Decentralization allows each region to manage its own affairs in ways that serve the needs of its residents, addressing many of the economic and II service-related challenges facing the country. Rather than fearing decentralization and associating it with separation, it should be viewed as a means to strengthen national unity and foster a sense of belonging to the state by enhancing local participation in decision-making.

Building a new Syria requires innovative solutions, and decentralization could be one of them. Achieving this, however, demands a deep national dialogue that transcends traditional fears and focuses on serving the Syrian people in all regions, away from political and ideological divisions.

Levant - Shiyar Khaleal