On Sunday, July 31, the DeFacto Dialogue Platform, in partnership with eight other forums, organized an open seminar with Syrian Scholar Zaidoun Alzoubi on the theme: “Unity and Social Stability Between Centralization and Decentralization.”
Alzoubi delivered a comprehensive presentation on the concept of decentralization, providing clear explanations and global examples while addressing common misconceptions. His talk was structured around three key questions:
- What are decentralization and federalism? Where do they intersect and diverge?
- Are they a trap for partition or a framework for power-sharing?
- Is the balance between centralization and decentralization a myth, or a necessary method for all state sectors and services?
The event featured diverse participation, with attendees contributing questions and comments both through Zoom and via live-stream discussions on social media.
The organizing platforms included: DeFacto Dialogue Platform, Future Forum, Omran Center for Strategic Studies, Masar Forum, Muwatana Forum, Democratic Civil Dialogue Forum, Watan Dialogue, Londnar Foundation, and the Arab Forum for Cultural Pluralism in Britain.
Alzoubi, a Syrian writer and researcher, holds a PhD in Information Systems Management, and is a governance expert and adviser to several international organizations.
Moderators Nurjan Sargaya and Ali al-Haj Hussein noted that the presentation would later be made available as a video, expanding access to Alzoubi’s efforts to clarify the complex issue of decentralization in the Syrian context and to contribute to discussions on building a future Syrian state.
Correcting Misconceptions
Early in the seminar, and throughout the Q&A session, Alzoubi emphasized the importance of dispelling widespread misconceptions among Syrians that hinder constructive debate. Among his key points:
- Decentralization is not a new concept in Syria. It has been on the table since the early days of the 2011 uprising, and became central to opposition and civil society debates by 2015.
- Not every form of decentralization or federalism leads to secession, nor are they blanket solutions to all governance challenges.
- There is no single global model of decentralization: some unitary states apply more decentralization than certain federal ones.
- Core functions such as the military, security forces, monetary policy, foreign trade, and citizenship remain under central authority in any decentralized system.
- The essence of decentralization lies not in labels—administrative, political, or financial—but in empowering locally elected authorities with real powers.
- Authoritarian regimes, by nature, are anti-decentralization, concentrating all decision-making at the center.
- Decentralization is not designed to protect specific ethnic or religious groups but to empower marginalized provinces and regions to make their own decisions, rather than being dictated to by the capital.
- Progress requires dialogue, political parties, and shared governance—waiting for a “perfect authority” is unrealistic.
- Current Syrian debates on decentralization are heavily influenced by ideology, with positions framed as either “for” or “against.”
- Demonizing or delegitimizing other perspectives only obstructs dialogue.
- Contrary to some claims, the Autonomous Administration has not proposed ethnic decentralization or a two-region federal system in its talks with Damascus.
- Arab regimes may lack democratic traditions, but democratization is a long process—examples such as Switzerland show that strong democracies evolve over time, not overnight.
Lessons from Global Models
Alzoubi reviewed international experiences, noting that levels of decentralization vary globally and cannot be judged by a country’s formal system (unitary, federal, or otherwise). Instead, measurement relies on indices such as V-Dem, which evaluate local government elections, actual powers of local authorities, the degree to which officials are elected, and the quality of local governance.
Terminology also varies: in Tunisia, local governments are called “regions,” in Turkey “provinces,” and in Iraq “governorates.” Moreover, states may decentralize some sectors (like education) while keeping others (like healthcare) under central control.
According to Alzoubi, Tunisia, a unitary state, achieved a decentralization index of over 92% after its 2014 constitution—higher than federal states like Russia and Iraq.
Tunisia’s Ennahda movement, often assumed to oppose decentralization, helped establish mechanisms to strengthen it.
Small states are not inherently unsuitable for decentralization. Latvia, with only 2 million people, ranks second in Europe after Germany.
Federal Austria ranks 18th globally, while unitary France ranks 13th, showing that federalism does not necessarily equal greater decentralization.
Comparing Iraq and Syria
Turning to the region, Alzoubi critiqued Iraq’s federal system, arguing that its rushed constitutional drafting and lack of proper design weakened the model. For example, Iraq retained a unicameral parliament, whereas federal systems usually require a bicameral legislature to balance national and regional interests.
He noted that Kurdish leaders in Iraq themselves advise Syrians not to replicate their system, as it failed to give them adequate representation in Baghdad. In Syria, he warned, copying the Iraqi model would encourage fragmentation rather than protect marginalized areas.
Given Syria’s diversity—Kurds and Druze live across multiple regions and cities—decentralization should prioritize empowering all provinces, particularly historically marginalized ones such as Deir ez-Zor and Idlib, rather than focusing on ethnic arrangements.
Dr. Alzoubi stressed that extreme centralization fosters extremism, while extreme decentralization fuels separatism. A balanced model is needed. Syria must transition from rigid centralization to participatory governance, where local communities have oversight over local authorities.
The current legal framework, including Law 107, offers no real local powers. Provincial councils are elected but lack authority, while sector directors are appointed and dismissed by Damascus, leaving no local accountability.
Alzoubi noted that the Assad regime’s centralized system marginalized all peripheries, including majority areas, turning wealthy provinces into “underdeveloped” regions, while Damascus itself suffered from overcrowding, pollution, and unregulated expansion.
Reactions and Debate
Participants welcomed the collaboration among forums and praised Alzoubi’s objective presentation of facts.
Ammar Kahf, from Omran Center, stressed that decentralization is not incompatible with national unity, but the concept has been demonized through divisive rhetoric. He cautioned, however, against seeing decentralization as a “magic solution,” noting that administrative and governance reforms require time, institution-building, and trust.
Zozan Alloush, from DeFacto Platform, emphasized the need to revisit decentralization, a term often distorted in Syrian discourse. She highlighted the importance of tackling root causes and learning from global shortcomings, such as Tunisia’s failure to decentralize finance and Iraq’s lack of resource-sharing mechanisms.
Mouwaffaq Zreiq, from Watan Dialogue, questioned whether Syria’s current fragmented and externally dominated reality allows for serious decision-making on decentralization.
Other participants argued for a political system that genuinely represents all communities before determining a governance model. Some suggested that decentralization should include recognition of Kurdish national rights, while Alzoubi reiterated that the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) does not demand ethnic federalism in its negotiations, and that ethnic-based systems would only lead to destruction.
He cautioned against postponing constitutional debate: “If we wait for the war to end, it will never end,” he said, pointing to South Africa and Tunisia, which required years of debate despite not experiencing the scale of war and destruction seen in Syria.
