After more than five years since the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, there has been no success in achieving any progress in the political process for Syria. Although the Syrian Constitutional Committee has held five rounds of meetings since it was established in September of 2019, it has also failed in its mission. 

On 1 February 2021, the Sindiyana Institute hosted a debate about the future of the UN-led process in Syria, with the aim of making a recommendations to the UN Security Council. 

The debate was conducted online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 70 participants—primarily from inside Syria—attended the event, in addition to several European diplomats. The panel of speakers was selected to ensure representation from across the Syrian political spectrum. The webinar has been made available online and has been watched by hundreds of viewers.

The discussion focused on the position of Syrians who did not support the social movement in 2011. Many believed that the movement did not have the potential to achieve good governance or substantive democratic change. Their rationale was based on the fear that in the absence of a viable political alternative to the Syrian regime, Syria would become a failed state.

The conversation also highlighted the failure of SCR 2254 to address the critical role of Syrian people in the political process by focusing solely on the conflict’s key players - the Syrian regime and opposition forces. It was also noted that SCR 2254 lacked any obligatory mechanisms for its implementation. 

The discussion highlighted shifts in the Syrian political environment since the adoption of SCR 2254, including changes in the Syrian regime’s power dynamic and multiple divisions in the opposition. 

Furthermore, the panel criticized the SCR 2254’s lukewarm encouragement of women’s participation in the political process, resulting in their alienation from negotiations, the limitation of their role to an advisory capacity, and their exclusion from the decision-making process. The Constitutional Committee also lacked the needed critical mass of gender advocates; both committee’s co-presidents were men. 

According to the panel, the meetings of civil society groups in Geneva have also been exclusionary. Divisions among these groups have not been sufficiently transparent. Although the civil society members on the Constitutional Committee were nominated by the UN Special Envoy to Syria and not the Syrian public, these appointees were given representative status. 

The discussion noted the need to begin a process that will build peace and social cohesion among Syrians, and facilitate the return of refugees to their home country in an inclusive and dignified manner. 

The panel criticized the UN’s exclusion of Kurdish political forces governing North and East Syria, which they said contradicts SCR 2245’s commitment to an inclusive political process that ensures the representation of all Syrian people.

It was agreed that there is a need for continued international diplomacy as well as the adoption of different approaches to peace-building in Syria to ensure a democratic political transition and take Syrian people’s interests into account. 

The debate concluded with the pledge to conduct more Syrian-led dialogue between Syrians on issues related to the future of the country.