Syrian elections are decided before election day
President Bashar al-Assad set July 15 as election day for the Syrian People’s Assembly in the areas controlled by his government. As the electoral process unfolded, our series of articles deconstructed the key elements of Syrian elections and their role in legitimizing Baath Party rule. This series will also conduct a deep dive into the challenges of moving ahead with electoral reform in the United Nations (UN)-facilitated political process. The first article of the series discussed the outline of the election process and its significance, while the second article examined the system of representation, which determines the voting method and how many candidates will be elected from each of the districts. The third article presented the structure of the Syrian electorate. This article unpacks the role of various institutions in administering elections and the candidates.
The absence of an independent electoral administration in Syria is not news to anyone. The electoral authorities are deeply embedded within the judicial and executive structure and operate as extensions of the ruling party’s apparatus, rather than as impartial overseers of the electoral process. This integration ensures that electoral commissions at all levels, from national to regional, strictly adhere to the governing party’s agenda.
The administration is not a centralized system under a single hierarchical institution. Instead, it involves multiple governmental and judicial bodies. At the top of this system is the Supreme Judicial Elections Committee (SJEC), which in practice is appointed by presidential decree instead of by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) as required by the law. The SJEC is neither equipped nor mandated to implement elections, as it does not have staff or offices for election operations.
SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER
Below the SJEC are the governorate-level subcommittees. Nominally, these should be the key institutions in managing election operations other than the candidacy process, which is managed by the nomination committees that work independently from the governorate subcommittee.
Both committees are staffed by judges who approach their work by focusing on providing legal cover for processes implemented by other institutions, rather than actively managing electoral operations.
These committees suffer from the same lack of independence as the rest of the judicial system in Syria, as the president wields significant control over the judicial system overall. He is a member of the SJC and appoints the Supreme Constitutional Court, which handles election appeals.
However, even if the judicial committees were more independent, they would have little control over the process: the Ministry of Interior (MoI) is the key operational entity. It is tasked with various matters, such as managing the voters register, custody over all the electoral documents, procurement and management of sensitive election materials, and logistics.
At the local level, election day operations are managed by election committees composed of civil servants appointed by governors. These committees are part of the governmental structure and do not report to the SJEC, further eroding the processes’ independence. The committees are hardly trained, as their training consists of oath-taking ceremonies with little focus on the actual procedures.
The lack of comprehensive regulations that are supposed to operationalize the election law exacerbates these issues. With judicial commissions reduced to issuing appointments and loose guidance, many aspects of the elections remain unregulated. This regulatory vacuum gives the MoI and election committees significant discretion in implementing electoral procedures.
In conclusion, the Syrian electoral administration system is designed to centralize control under the president through the judicial system, governors, and the MoI. This structure eliminates any meaningful chance for truly independent elections, as every key aspect of the electoral process can be traced back to presidential influence or control.
All this raises the question: what are the options for credible management of elections in Syria? Can the system be reformed by focusing on key problematic aspects? That said, the system is so deeply flawed that it needs to be rebuilt entirely for elections to enjoy any credibility. The standards required are familiar and often used in post-conflict settings, such as establishing a new independent electoral management body with authority to both regulate and implement elections and whose leadership is appointed through a consensual process. Until that is possible, United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2254 attempts to provide a transitional fix, stating that elections should be “administered under supervision of the United Nations.”
However, the term “supervision” has various forms and definitions, even within the UN framework, and the UN’s role has ranged from approving steps in the management of the process to “conducting” elections as part of the peace process, as it did in Cambodia, Eastern Slavonia, or East Timor. Yet, such deep involvement of the UN in Syrian elections would require a high degree of political consensus among the UNSC members, which is hard to envision.
On the other hand, when examining the system and the candidacy process, it is apparent that the laws and procedures—or lack thereof—are tools serving a single purpose: eliminating candidates not endorsed by the Baath Party.
The constitution neither protects nor restricts the right to run in assembly elections. Instead, candidacy is entirely regulated by an election law adopted in 2014 by presidential decree. This law introduces several unfair limits on this right. Some restrictions, like the ten-year Syrian nationality requirement, seem minor but impact those with unregularized status (except for Hasakah’s Kurds, who were designated as foreigners or “ajanib”) and potentially up to 4 million Syrians living overseas.
There are a few more restrictions of particular concern for those who opposed the Assad regime, such as the exclusion of those who have been sentenced for a “felony or misdemeanor that is dishonorable and shakes the public trust.” These offenses are defined by the decree of the justice minister and disqualify all those sentenced for political reasons. However, even if the offense does not fall into this category, all criminally convicted individuals automatically lose their civil and political rights, including the right to stand for office, for ten years after serving their prison sentence.
Those eligible to apply for candidacy must navigate a process that is only vaguely regulated, giving judge-led committees considerable flexibility in deciding on nominations. For example, committees may request an “accredited certificate” proving literacy even when candidates present university degrees. Another quirk requires candidates who wish to contest a “worker or famer” seat to prove they are not listed in industrial or commercial registers.
As presented in the electoral system article, candidates not running on the Baath-endorsed National Unity (NU) List have minuscule chances of being elected. What, then, explains the large number of candidates for the 250 seats in the assembly? For example, in the SJEC accepted 11,341 applications in the 2016 elections, 8,735 in 2020, and 9,194 in 2024. The answer is that the Baath Party encourages members to apply in massive numbers as an indicator of vigorous and credible political competition. Registering for candidacy with the SJEC is only the first prerequisite for becoming a Baath candidate. The second step is the Baath Party process, in which the aspirants compete for the endorsement. This is colloquially called “primaries,” but “consultation” would be a more accurate term.
Without a real election campaign—as a case in point, the NU lists of candidates were only published six days before the polls—hyping up the primaries is essential for the illusion of choice. And, because the Baathists not featured on the NU lists have little chance of winning a seat, the primaries are more important than the polling. Most of the aspirants not included in the list withdrew before election day, so only 1,516 candidates are heading to the polls.
Despite being central to elections, the primaries are still just theatrics rather than a genuine competition. While they look like a proper election process on the surface, their results are not binding. The participation of Baathists is wide and includes an “electronic voting system” that could be easily manipulated and does not guarantee secrecy, and “the party independent election commission” oversees the process. Yet, the result of voting is only advisory. The final say remains with the top Baath Party body, the Central Command, which regularly tweaks the results, claiming to have taken into consideration the “opinion of the general public.” That outcome is regularly criticized on social media.
The primaries may not be the most intriguing process for those interested in internal Baath politics. Instead, the internal elections for the positions in the Baath bodies, which culminated in a series of appointments and dismissals of party leaders earlier this year, could provide a better insight. It appears these elections had some impact on the leadership structure, as a whole new central leadership was elected and most of the new leaders are in their fifties. Some have concluded that the new leadership might be more interested in engaging the general membership and more open to critical voices.
The Baathists on the NU List were announced, with a delay of two days, on July 9 and for unclear reasons. Baath-affiliated media justified the delay by arguing it was to “ensure fair representation, support the democratic process, and respect the voters’ will in a balanced manner.” But the concurrent news of the dismissal of the nineteen incumbent members of the assembly for “low ideological awareness,” and the lifting of the immunity of another seven members due to corruption, attracted interest and was a matter of debate in social media.
A cursory review of the NU lists reveals that the number of incumbents (fifty-eight) is somewhat lower than in the 2020 elections (sixty-eight), which might reflect the above-mentioned renewed party leadership. The Baath strategy appears to be the promotion of lower-tier loyalists to rebuild party discipline. A deeper analysis of that trend is warranted and should examine why the governorates with the highest turnover are Damascus, Deir ez-Zor, Idlib, Tartous, and Raqqa. On the other hand, Daraa (where five out of eight candidates are incumbents) and al-Hasakah (with six incumbents out of eleven) seem to have only a few replacements.
The number of women in the assembly is consistently trending downward—in 2020, it dropped from thirty-three to twenty-eight—and this year’s elections did not reverse that trend. Twenty-two female candidates are now on the NU list (12 percent), even fewer than in 2020 when NU featured twenty-five women. The Baath Party could easily endorse more women if it wanted to promote women’s participation, as the 2020 elections show that women have minimal chances to be elected outside of the NU lists (only 1.5 percent of the non-NU candidates are women), so the Syrian parliament will likely remain one among those with the lowest representation of women in the world.
The candidates running for the uncontested seats are colloquially called “independents.” More than one thousand of those remaining in the race competed for the sixty-five seats. They sometimes formed “independent candidate lists,” mostly in urban governorates like Damascus and Aleppo. These are often businessmen or militiamen closely affiliated with the regime, supporting the facade of diversity. In some cases, they feature prominent personalities, such as the Damascus list “From Damascus For You Syria,” which includes Mohamed Hammam Miswati and Bilal Naal, assembly incumbents with close ties to the Assad regime. Another Damascene list is “Sham List,” which features the incumbent Mohamed Hamsho (sanctioned by the European Union and the United States). Others, like Wael Melhem from Homs, ran without forming a list and count on personal prominence.
And while the polls were held on July 15, the elections were effectively over at the end of the primaries. The candidates on the National Unity list will sit in the assembly. If there was hope for even a minor opening of political space, the regime sent a clear message: there was no interest in political reforms. Elections are only an aspect of internal Baath consolidation, and the assembly will have free rein for constitutional amendments needed to allow Bashar al-Assad to stay in office beyond 2028.
Vladimir Pran advises electoral authorities, governments, and political leaders on transitional, electoral, and political processes.
Maroun Sfeir advises international and local civil society organizations, political groups, and electoral authorities on electoral and political processes.
Further reading
Wed, Jul 10, 2024
Syria’s inflated electorate is caused by phantom voters
MENASource By
The confusion over the true size of the electorate will certainly not be resolved in these elections.
Mon, Jun 24, 2024
The Syrian electoral system guarantees inequality
MENASource By
The framework of the block vote is so advantageous to the Baath Party that opposition parties would not stand a chance to win a significant number of seats.
Thu, Apr 25, 2024
The Syrian parliamentary elections are coming up. Should anyone care?
MENASource By
The polls will be held again against a backdrop of massive displacement, unresolved conflict, partial occupation, and an intransigent regime.
Image: A voter participates in parliamentary elections at a polling station in Damascus, Syria July 15, 2024. REUTERS/Yamam al Shaar