9 min read

Yasser al-Aiti: ‘A Syria without political parties will revert to tyranny’

Dr. Yasser al-Aiti, the leader of the New Syria Movement party, discusses the current priorities in Syria, the role of political parties and the international community’s response to Assad’s fall.


21 January 2025

What will Syria’s new system of government look like? What will its guiding principles be? Will the current de facto leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, lead Syria into a bright, unified future or a dark unknown? Syrians have been debating these questions and more since the Assad regime fell on December 8, 2024. 

After ousted President Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia, al-Sharaa took leadership of the country, tasking Muhammad al-Bashir—then the head of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-backed Salvation Government in northwestern Syria—with forming a caretaker government to manage the country until March of this year. 

At the same time, al-Sharaa sent messages of reassurance, both domestically and internationally, pledging to preserve the diversity of Syrian society and the uniqueness of its ethnic and religious mosaic. 

In an interview with the Saudi state-owned Al-Arabiya channel last month, al-Sharaa said preparations were underway for a comprehensive national dialogue conference to vote on key issues and lay the groundwork for a political transition.

However, just what tomorrow’s Syria will look like is still unclear. For now, the regional and international community approach the current administration with cautious openness while underscoring the urgency of issues such as the constitution, political participation and the protection of minorities. The latter is an oft-repeated concern, given the history of violations by HTS under al-Sharaa, once known only by his nom de guerre—Abu Muhammad al-Jolani. 

The New Syria Movement, a political party founded in northern Syria in 2019 and announced in March 2024, is familiar with these and other concerns. “We opposed HTS for its authoritarian practices. We do not regret this…if these practices resurfaced, we would return to the same opposition,” Dr. Yasser al-Aiti, the head of the party, tells Syria Direct’s Ammar Hamou. However, in rhetoric and practice “there is a positive difference that we welcome and encourage,” he added. 

Many of those appointed to key positions in the caretaker government so far have been figures loyal to HTS. At this stage, “it is natural to choose those you trust, know and have experience with…but for a temporary period,” al-Aiti says. “After that, monopolizing appointments is no longer acceptable and justifiable, because there must be participation, widening participation.”

Wider political participation, a flourishing of political parties and public life, is essential to securing a brighter future for Syria, as al-Aiti sees it. “A Syria without political parties will revert to tyranny,” he says. “We, as people of the revolution, rose up for freedom and participation in public affairs.”

While the top priority at the moment is to establish security and provide citizens basic services, it is also the right time to plant the seeds of new political parties and organizations, preparing the “best possible candidates” to run in future elections. 

And, crucially, “now is the time to speak the truth, and not go back to the state of fear, hypocrisy and fawning that brought us to this point,” al-Aiti concludes. “Pointing out and rejecting a mistake does not mean hostility or animosity towards those in power. On the contrary, this is the proper and natural way for things to improve.”

In the following interview, al-Aiti discusses the priorities for the current phase in Syria, the role he sees for political parties and the international community’s approach to the country after Assad’s fall. 

Last year, on the anniversary of the Syrian revolution, the New Syria Movement held its founding conference at a time when there was no horizon for a political solution. Today, after Assad’s fall, what is your party’s role, and how do you view the role of political parties in general at this moment? 

Political parties, including the New Syria Movement, should have visions for the country and agendas for the transition and post-transition phase. Political forces and parties are supposed to come together around a certain idea or orientation. Today, Syria has a spectrum that includes liberal, secular, conservative, nationalist, left-wing and right-wing orientations. Each party must define its identity, which is the basis, and after that announce its vision for the country’s future and translate it into actionable programs that rally people around it. From there, it can engage with other parties to discuss common ground and cooperation. 

In the past, your party criticized HTS, while your current stance is to “set differences aside” to participate in building the new Syria. Do you have direct contact with the current government? How do you assess the state of administration and institutions, weeks after Syria’s liberation? 

I don’t remember using [the phrase] ‘setting differences aside’—perhaps others used it. This suggests personal disagreements that we want to set aside, which is not correct. We opposed HTS for its authoritarian practices. We do not regret this, nor do we consider it wrong or something that should be set aside. If these practices resurfaced, we would return to the same opposition. 

What we are saying now, with regard to HTS, is that there is a difference in the rhetoric. There is a positive difference that we welcome and encourage. There is also a difference in practice, which is also positive, that we welcome with open arms. 

We have no communication with the current government, though there is contact with individuals in HTS below the government level. So far, we consider its performance positive. We understand the selection of certain people [for roles in government] on the basis of their loyalty to HTS as a transitional act, or a transitional phase. The country has no security or army, so you need to take hold of things. It is natural to appoint someone from above without consulting anyone, and to choose those you trust, know and have experience with. We do not disagree with this, but for a temporary period of days, weeks or perhaps even months—that is, the caretaker period until March. After that, monopolizing appointments is no longer acceptable and justifiable, because there must be participation, widening participation. 

Since the regime fell, many voices have raised questions about the future shape of the state, governance and constitution. Others have called for this discussion to be postponed. What is your perspective?

To talk about the constitution, people must first return from the places to which they were expelled or displaced. We have millions of displaced people inside and outside of Syria, and they must return and settle down. Once basic needs are secured, there will be an environment that is safe and conducive to discussing the constitution. 

We do not believe that now is the right time to debate such issues. That does not mean they should not be talked about. Anyone has the right to meet and discuss them. But looking at priorities, drafting the constitution and holding a referendum on it should come after a minimally secure and stable environment is achieved and the displaced return. This should be at the end of the transitional period, which we estimate will take three years. Perhaps after working on that, two years from now—the last year of the transitional phase—there would be a constituent assembly, and we would begin drafting and discussing a constitution. 

Currently, the priority is achieving security and stability, followed by securing basic needs, the return of refugees and the displaced and ensuring a safe environment to discuss final governance issues and the final form of the state. 

What are the current priorities as Syria transitions from revolution to state-building? 

To move from revolution to the state, we have to achieve security and stability, unify the army and security forces and put an end to factionalism. We must also liberate all of Syria—there are still areas controlled by the [Syrian Democratic Forces] SDF. 

Second, [we must] secure basic services such as electricity and get the wheel of the economy turning, because people suffer from poverty and unemployment. There is a basic level of services and economic needs that must be worked on. 

Third, space must be given in the public sphere for political action, for people to come together in political gatherings: parties or civil groups such as trade unions and civil society organizations. The political discussion over Syria’s future and the form of governance should begin. 

There is concern about Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities, with many Western countries expressing their interest and fear of violations based on HTS’ past track record. In your opinion, has HTS changed? 

There is no doubt that HTS’ rhetoric and behavior towards minorities has changed. We saw that after Operation Deterring Aggression began. HTS issued a statement addressing Nubl and Zahraa [Shiite-majority towns north of Aleppo city] in nationalist terms, saying it had no problem with them as Shiites, but that the problem is with the criminals. There was similar rhetoric directed at the Alawite sect, and this is a significant change. 

We also saw that the behavior of HTS and those affiliated with it—of course, there are exceptions—towards minorities, especially Alawites, was disciplined. We did not see arbitrary retaliation. The regime promoted [the narrative] that massacres would be committed if it fell, which did not happen. Rather, we saw an overall state of discipline. This confirms there is a clear change in HTS’ rhetoric and treatment of minorities, and we should encourage this. 

How can the issue of Syria’s minorities be dealt with at a national level, in your opinion? What do you think about the international handling of this issue so far? 

All Syrian political and social forces express a desire for coexistence. We do not want to enter into sectarian conflicts or for countries to interfere through the issue of sects and minorities. There is a general desire among Syrians across the board, and especially the majority, to live in one country as equals in rights and obligations, staying away from any form of sectarianism and quotas in the coming Syria. 

The international treatment of the minorities issue is shameful, sadly. We see countries talking about minorities while they were silent when the regime was slaughtering Syrians, killing hundreds of thousands of them. There was no concern, no demand for rights and no fear for people [then]. It is as if Syria has two types of blood, one more precious than the other. 

If these countries that are now advocating for minorities had raised their voices against the killings, massacres and chemical attacks—through words, actions, prosecution and measures against the regime—with the same level of concern they show for minorities, we would say their words are acceptable.

What also discredits European and Western countries is that, if not for Operation Deterring Aggression overturning the military balance, they would be heading towards normalizing and reconciling with the regime, keeping it in power with no issue about its killings and massacres. This is undoubtedly contradictory, and reflects the moral inconsistency and failure of these countries. They fear for one group of Syrians and call for their rights, while showing no concern for another group despite the killings and displacement they suffered. 

What role should political parties play in the current period? 

A Syria without political parties will revert to tyranny. The tyrant will claim there are no political forces or competing programs to serve Syrians. Consequently, he will assert ‘there is only my party and my group to rule.’ The issue of political parties is fundamental, especially since we, as people of the revolution, rose up for freedom and participation in public affairs. 

Unless we have political parties that have popular support, competency and skilled cadres, there can be no freedoms in the future Syria. There can be no political competition to serve the people and their interests, no move away from the one-party state and the eternal, glorified leader. 

Where do statespeople emerge from today? The parties. Out of political parties come members of parliament, politicians, ministers and leaders. Of course, we need a lot of work in Syrian political life to establish genuine national parties that can nurture cadres, come to understandings and form alliances. 

To that end, parties should start forming and working now, not wait for the next phase. They must start now to save time, straighten themselves out, develop their experience and be ready to compete peacefully in the first post-transition elections and present the best possible candidates to achieve Syrians’ interests. 

Do you have any concluding message you would like to convey to Syrians? 

Syrians must know that an opportunity has been given to live a free and dignified life. They must take responsibility and not place blame on the state or play the role of the victim. Every citizen is responsible for their demands and rights. If they see a mistake, they should point it out and help the state fulfill its duties. 

Now is the time to speak the truth, and not go back to the state of fear, hypocrisy and fawning that brought us to this point. Every citizen is responsible for the great accomplishment—freedom—and must defend it wisely. Many of us say we should not take an opposing stance at the moment to avoid falling into division or chaos. With this excuse, they fall silent, returning to the state we were once living in. 

Pointing out and rejecting a mistake does not mean hostility or animosity towards those in power. On the contrary, this is the proper and natural way for things to improve. When those in power notice public opinion pointing out mistakes, they correct them and things are set right. 

This interview was originally published in Arabic and translated into English by Mateo Nelson. 

Share this article