Elections are usually presented as a central milestone in post–armed conflict phases, seen as a tool to restore legitimacy and mark the beginning of a new stage of governance. However, transitional experiences—foremost among them the Libyan case after 2011—reveal that early elections, in the absence of consensus on the state, weak institutions, social fragmentation, and widespread weapons, may in fact reproduce conflict. In Libya, the ballot boxes did not lead to participatory governance; instead, they deepened polarization and turned politics into an extension of factional struggles.
In an article published by researcher Mazead Al-Kredy in partnership with #Lugarit, entitled:
“Ballots Before Peace? Libya’s Cautionary Tale and the Syrian Dilemma”
He discussed the risks of pushing toward early elections in Syria without completing the necessary political and institutional conditions to guarantee genuine representation of Syrians’ will. Although the transitional authority has opted to postpone elections, postponement alone is not sufficient. What is needed is the activation of consensus-based mechanisms to form the legislative authority, allowing space for new reformist forces and reassuring potential losers through guarantees of their participation—thereby reducing the likelihood of a return to violence.
In this context, Article (24) of the Syrian Constitutional Declaration, and Decree No. (66), under which the transitional president (Ahmad Al-Sharaa) formed a Supreme Election Commission, raise fundamental concerns. They grant the president the power to form the commission without transparent criteria or genuine representation, which risks reproducing unilateral governance and undermining public trust. The lack of pluralism, the absence of qualified expertise, and the exclusion of opposition forces and civil society; transform this structure into a political instrument rather than a neutral framework for shaping a representative legislative authority.
The future of the political process in Syria depends on revisiting these arrangements and adopting comprehensive institutional reforms with the participation of all stakeholders, to ensure a political path that leads to genuine stability—rather than a superficial electoral process that merely redistributes power among dominant forces.