With Assad overthrown, Syria’s fractured rebel coalition, led by HTS, struggles to navigate the complexities of peacebuilding and power-sharing.
The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad marks a historic victory for Syria’s rebel forces, but the celebrations are tempered by an uncertain future. Drawing lessons from post-conflict transitions in countries like Libya, Uganda, and Ethiopia, Syria faces the risk of internal fragmentation and renewed violence as competing factions vie for influence in the absence of a stable authority.
The Military Operations Command, the coalition that toppled Assad, has already disbanded in all but name. The dominant faction, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, remains the primary force, but its own internal structure—a merger of at least four separate militias—reflects the precarious nature of alliances forged during the conflict.
Al-Sharaa’s pledge to disband all factions and integrate fighters into a national defense ministry is ambitious but fraught with challenges. History suggests that rival factions are likely to emerge, challenging HTS’s legitimacy and threatening the fragile unity of Syria’s transitional period.
Syria’s post-conflict trajectory mirrors challenges seen in Libya, South Sudan, and Uganda:
Fragmentation of Coalitions: In Libya, the National Transition Council quickly fractured into rival militias, resulting in prolonged instability. Similar dynamics could play out in Syria as smaller factions, uncertain of their place in a centralized system, switch allegiances to strengthen their positions.
Shifting Loyalties: Opportunistic realignments among militias, seen in both Libya and South Sudan, could undermine HTS’s efforts to consolidate power and create a unified defense structure.
High-Stakes National Politics: HTS’s vision for a unified state without federal regions raises the stakes for national elections, making the political game a zero-sum contest prone to violent outcomes, as demonstrated by Uganda’s post-Amin elections.
Ethiopia’s post-Derg transition attempted to devolve power to ethnic regions, providing former rebel factions with localized stakes. While imperfect, this approach mitigated some of the risks associated with centralized governance.
In Syria, however, the lack of clear ethno-territorial bases for most militias and HTS’s rejection of federalism as a political model limit the viability of such a solution. The emphasis on a unified state places immense pressure on the transitional government to navigate competing interests without devolving into renewed conflict.
While elections are a cornerstone of democratic transitions, their timing and structure can determine whether they stabilize or destabilize a nation. In Uganda, elections in 1980 reignited rebellion when one faction felt marginalized. Similarly, in Syria, elections held prematurely or without inclusive power-sharing mechanisms risk sidelining factions and provoking violent reprisals.
Syria’s post-Assad transition faces significant hurdles:
Internal Rivalries: The diverse and often overlapping interests of militias under the HTS umbrella threaten to fracture the coalition.
Uncertain Governance: The absence of federalist structures or other mechanisms to provide localized stakes may intensify competition for national power.
External Influences: Regional and international actors, including Turkey, Iran, and Russia, may exacerbate internal divisions as they seek to shape Syria’s future.
Syria’s post-war path to peace is fraught with complexities. While HTS’s leadership offers a temporary anchor, the fragmented nature of the coalition, the lack of decentralized governance, and the high stakes of national politics present significant risks of renewed violence.
Learning from past transitions, Syria’s future stability hinges on building inclusive governance structures, carefully timing elections, and addressing the underlying grievances that fueled years of conflict. Without such measures, the celebration of Assad’s fall may soon give way to a new chapter of uncertainty and violence.
