Syria’s new legislature has held its first sitting since Bashar al-Assad’s removal, opening a test of representation, authority and legitimacy in the country’s transition.
DAMASCUS – Syria’s newly elected parliament has convened for the first time since the removal of Bashar al-Assad, marking the beginning of a more institutional phase in the country’s post-Assad transition.
The sitting is symbolically important because Syria spent decades under a political system in which parliament had little meaningful independence from the presidency and security services. The new People’s Assembly is being presented by the transitional authorities as evidence that the state is moving from revolutionary or emergency rule toward legal and representative structures.
The practical question is how much authority the body will really hold. According to reporting on the first session, the assembly has 210 members, with two-thirds chosen through electoral colleges and one-third appointed by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa. It is expected to serve for a limited transitional term while the country works toward future elections and a more settled constitutional order.
That hybrid selection system will be watched closely. Supporters can argue that Syria is emerging from war, displacement and institutional collapse, making a perfect electoral process impossible in the short term. Critics can counter that presidential appointments and indirect selection risk reproducing a managed legislature under a new political leadership.
Representation is the central issue. Syria’s transition must account for communities that suffered under Assad, minorities that fear domination by the new order, displaced citizens, Kurdish-controlled areas, former opposition networks and regions where security remains fragile. A parliament that visibly includes these constituencies could help legitimise the transition. A chamber seen as narrow or controlled would strengthen doubts at home and abroad.
The first sitting comes as Damascus seeks broader international acceptance. Recent moves, including engagement with European leaders and renewed cooperation with international organisations, suggest that the new authorities want sanctions relief, reconstruction finance and diplomatic normalisation. Foreign governments will not judge those requests only on speeches. They will look at whether institutions can constrain executive power, protect minorities and support accountable governance.
The legislature may also influence the sanctions debate. European and US policymakers have been cautious about rewarding the new authorities too quickly, particularly while questions remain about security practices and political inclusion. A functioning parliament could provide a channel for legal reform and oversight. But if it merely endorses decisions taken elsewhere, it will do little to change external calculations.
Security remains the largest constraint. Syria’s state institutions are being rebuilt in a country still marked by armed groups, economic collapse and the legacy of mass displacement. Parliamentary procedure cannot by itself resolve control over territory, detention files, property disputes or reconstruction contracts. But it can create a public arena in which those issues are at least formally debated.
The election of a speaker and the opening session therefore represent a starting point rather than a democratic conclusion. The assembly’s credibility will depend on what comes next: whether committees are formed, whether members can question ministers, whether laws are debated openly and whether the public can see genuine disagreement inside the chamber.
For Europe, the significance is direct. Syria’s political trajectory will shape refugee return debates, reconstruction policy, counter-terrorism cooperation and sanctions decisions. A parliament that helps stabilise a plural transition would make engagement easier. A parliament that consolidates executive power under new branding would leave Europe facing the same dilemma in a different form.
Syria now has a legislature in session. The harder test is whether it becomes a forum for the country’s political reconstruction or simply another instrument of authority.
